Jump to content

Talk:Rorschach test

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPAdoc (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 5 August 2009 (→Availability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

.

Recently moved image discussions

Moved to /images#All 10 images
Moved to /images#RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content?
Moved to /images#New arguments go here
Moved to /images#A Consideration on Harm, Protection of Test Materials, and the Use of the Images in Question
Moved to /images#A compromise informing the reader about health concerns.
Moved to /images#Comments from a designated representative
Moved to /images#Stale

Recently archived discussions

/Archive 9#Perhaps Citizendium could help?
if necessary, continue discussion below
/Archive 9#Merging from Exner scoring system
if necessary, continue discussion below
/Archive 9#Another kind of damage
if necessary, continue discussion below
/Archive 9#Clarification About the Rules of this Debate
if necessary, continue discussion below
/Archive 9#General agreement to move the inkblot debate to a subpage
if necessary, continue discussion below
/Archive 9#plagiarism?
if necessary, continue discussion below
/Archive 9#More misinformation
if necessary, continue discussion below
/Archive 9#Formal mediation filed
if necessary, continue discussion below

Interesting piece from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/27CRASH.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad summary of the state of the post-Wood storm a month after it occurred, but given that the article is about six years old, it is missing most of the debunking of Wood et al. that came later. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can incorporate the point of view of both the supporters and the detractors of this test in the interest of neutrality. Chillum 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of the major problems with the page as it stands now (as I said ages ago), and one of the really delicate balancing acts in writing this article, is presenting the various positions about the test with appropriate weights given to them, not just giving "equal time" because you can't tell which is what. There are some folks who think all projectives are bunk, some who think just the Rorschach is bunk, some who think most projectives are bunk but the Rorschach is a neuropsych test that just also happens to have some projective aspects, some who think the Rorschach is great but find it too complex for their own purposes, some who think it's one of their desert-island tests, and probably some other viewpoints I haven't even noted. There are many different viewpoints and nuances to each, and to have a sense of how prominent each one actually is within the field is going to be really tricky. Mirafra (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can it not be more or less gauged by the amount of peer-reviewed material written about it from these various points of views? --LjL (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of Wood et al.'s hype is designed to stir up non-psychologists so they can get press outside of peer-reviewed publications and sell books. There's not a lot of peer-reviewed support for Wood et al. Much of what they've said has been debunked in peer-reviewed publications. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When reading peer-reviewed literature, I think that quantity is one metric, but it's also important to read the literature itself. Lots of more subtle indicators exist (such as which journals something is in, how many different people are publishing on different aspects of the same viewpoint, etc). Also, within the papers, just because something got published does not mean that it is of equal quality (in terms of research design and implementation and rigor of interpretation, etc) with everything else. This is quite an ambitious undertaking. Mirafra (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why we cannot present all significant viewpoints. If there are reliable sources who claim Wood is wrong, then we can include that too. It is common in scholarly areas for people to disagree, we need to cover that disagreement. Chillum 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't present all significant viewpoints, just that we should take care to give them no more than their due weight, which sounds reasonable. --LjL (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more. I am sure the criticisms of the test are due some weight, how much is a question that can be determined through the referencing of reliable sources. Chillum 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and another interesting piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html?_r=1&hp (linked above in the press multi). At least now we have a reliable source for the controversy and the positions of psychologists. A little bit of a feedback loop, but useful nevertheless... –xenotalk 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positions of psychologists, perhaps, but we certainly have a reliable source for the position of the publisher that licenses the test.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the picture they used any more representative of the present-day administration of the test? –xenotalk 05:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps our opposition will take a break on Wikipedia and spend some time telling the Toronto Star what not to put in their articles. I imagine their coverage is larger than this article gets, the image is shown much larger and they describe the common answers given to that card. Chillum 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this was in the print version, I'll take a walk over to the box a bit later. Their common answers appear to have been lifted directly from here, including the peculiar colon "blue: crab, lobster, spider". –xenotalk 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, really? So they took my "answers", which all psychologists here were saying aren't really accurate, and I'd be ready to admit the same since they're straight from Samuel Beck which isn't exactly new, and published them as the actual answers? Now this is getting real fun. --LjL (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is from our article. I am not sure, but I think the colon after "blue" indicates that those shapes are the blue part of the inkblot. It could be more clear if that is what is meant though. Chillum 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Chillum, that is what I meant. Basically, the original table had "W: whatever" for responses pertaining to the whole image, then "D1: whatever" (or D2 etc.) for detail responses. Now, in some cases, detail responses are more common than whole-image responses, so I thought specifying the color like that would be the quickest way to convey that without making those captions as long as this reply. --LjL (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand break

article views on Jul 29 - 187,300, on Jul 30 - 581,300 [1]

It's also trending very highly in the blogs and networking sites like Twitter... Here's an interesting piece I found [2]. –xenotalk 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This recent influx of media attention has made the previous spike in traffic from the slashdotting look like a small bump: Usage statistics. Looks like about 187 thousand people looked at the page on the 29th compared to the average of the about 3-4 hundred we normally get in a day. I am glad this article is getting so much attention, I just wish it was not due to a debate that has been long settled. Chillum 13:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're mistaken. If the debate had been settled, there wouldn't be at least three or four people who keep insisting about removing images and data; if there hadn't been such people, the NYT wouldn't have written an article about it; if the NYT hadn't written an article about it, 190000 people wouldn't have looked at the test cards. Oh well. --LjL (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the images that are the subject of the debate have not changed on the page for weeks, yes people are still talking about it, but the debate is clearly settled. We have come to the conclusion to keep the images and it does not look like this is going to change. What we have right now is just people beating a dead horse. If it was a debate it would be moving forward. Chillum 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because y'all refused to allow any such changes. It seemed obvious that anyone who removed the images would be seen as vandalizing the page and immediately reverted. Mirafra (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat interesting comparison between the slashdotting and the NYTimes'ing; on the day of the slashdotting the article received 45.8k views whereas the talk page received 51.9k (113%) while on the 29th/30th, the talk page only received 4.5k (2.4%) and 10.4k (1.8%) respectively. General public seems less interesting in our arguing than the article whereas the reverse for the slashdotters? –xenotalk 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the criticism section

Ok. One problem I see with the article is that the "Criticisms" section is very big (bigger than the rest of the article), and while I'm fine with having criticism, it does seem to me like - on one hand - some of the things mentioned are actually descriptive of the test and therefore would be better in the actual descriptive part of the article, and - on the other hand - many of these same things aren't really needed to expose the criticism or counter-criticism. Examples
  • "Tester projection": why make this whole argument about form quality, when it's made a matter of statistics in the Exner system? If "tester projection" is still considered an issue, use an actual current example of it, and move the remarks about Exner's way of scoring form somewhere else (they're there already, but they wouldn't mind another reference for sure).
  • "Validity": who cares about the specific details of R correlating with this and that? I mean, I do care, it's pretty interesting... but not in the context of criticism, where I'm sure just saying "several scores correlate well with general intelligence (such as R)" would do.
These are the two most striking ones for me, but the whole section does read a bit like it's an argument between two parties (rather than the description of one) and could be trimmed down with a bit of care. --LjL (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the criticism section is too long. It both contains material suitable for sections than merely describe the test, and fails outright to mention some of the more prominent criticisms such as The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak by Wood, Nezworski, Garb, and Lilienfeld (2006), this paper also references several other relevant sources. Chillum 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. All that silly stuff about "validity"! Who needs that psychometric babble! And wow! Let's give Wood et al. even more of pop psychology exposure. It'll do wonders for their book sales. Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do others think? Chillum 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LjL. Some of the critism section should be combined into the main body of the article as it seems to represent the majority opinion of the psycological community.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for the previous statement. Sounds rather like elevating this user's POV over others, to make it be the supposedly neutral background of the article. Mirafra (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section Population norms for example should be moved out of criticism into the main section. This ref here seems to imply that this test over diagnosis pathology ( ie false positive ) Diagnosis someone with schizophrenia / pyschosis who does not have it is a big deal. http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the test doesn't diagnose anyone. I agree that some people will have a positive score for psychosis who are not psychotic (I had a couple in my work over this past year -- one autistic, one with a severe and lifelong trauma history) based upon other available clinical information. The professional sources do not claim that the test makes diagnoses. The interpretive process creates clinical hypotheses which must be evaluated within the context of other clinical data. This is a straw-man argument. And irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia -- if what you're saying is that you insist that the article be brought in line with your personal viewpoint that the test should not be used, that sounds awfully like pushing a POV to me. Mirafra (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social impact

This test hold an important place in the psychee of the Western world. I think the article needs a section discussing this. There is even a carton... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, please tell me more. Chillum 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iovUDMlEoc
Here is are page on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)
2009 movie http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0029762/
And even a board game http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36231
--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very fitting. Discussions of cartoons and board games is just what this article needs. You're making my job a lot easier. Go ahead and create lots of information about cartoons and board games. I'll let the people at Britannica know what's going on here. I'm sure they can't wait to see it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not an instruction manual on how one would administer a Rorscharch written by experts for experts. The reason why we are all here debating this page is the Rorschach is one of the most famous and well known bits of psychology and has infact had an impact on Western culture. This impact would be of interest to many readers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is even becoming well known. We may even have to comment on it soon...--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must be very proud of yourself...from Moose Jaw to the NY Times. All at the relatively small cost of just harming people who could benefit from the test.Faustian (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that since the NYT has revealed James' complete name and town of residence, it's OK to mention it here on the talk page. It's helpful for readers to know what kind of doctor is making some of the comments here. Ward3001 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Faustian I knew you would approve :-) All in the name of holding back the return of the dark ages. I guess you could call this my little part in preventing 1984. If only this test were better than cold reading than maybe you could claim harm. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant/anachronistic claim about coldreading notwithstanding (people haven't generally used the Rorschach like that in 50 years), the utility of the test is generally accepted within the field (otherwise 80% of clinical psychologists doing assesment work wouldn't be using it) and thus the harm you caused people is real. I wonder if you've hurt as many people through wikipedia as you've helped in your medical practice. Faustian (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the material mentioned has a strained relationship to this test at best. I suppose a mention that this projective test has become far more familiar to the public than most others would be relevant though. Chillum 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an encyclopedia for a general audience doesn't mean we add useless trivia of no overall importance... not here or any other Wikipedia page. See WP:NOT, and. more directly, WP:ENC, for a refresher course. DreamGuy (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is trivia at all. Many articles have cultural impact sections. There's also not that many psychological tests that are household names like the Rorschach. For example, see all these publications using the phrase "has become a Rorschach test" [3] –xenotalk 13:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the Rorschach test itself has, in fact, become a Rorschach test, a reflection of anxiety about mind-reading or mind-control or the possibility of someone else making decisions about you for reasons you don't understand. This page is, if anything, more about that tension than about the test itself. Mirafra (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to a limited mention of how this test is far more familiar to the public than most projective tests. However I don't think we go too deep in our coverage of things loosely based on the idea of this test. Chillum 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that we should add information about the above products. They just show how prevalent some knowledge about this test is. The test does not exist in a clinical vacuum.
There are whole pages on sports scores / teams that have reached FA as well as a good article on Michael Jackson's health and appearance so obviously what is considered trivia is not that broadly applied.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I support some coverage of this area, within reason. Chillum 13:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James, you've given me some ideas. Just as there is an effort to add "cultural trivia" to this artilce, I hope you'll support me if I try to add it to other medical articles. For example, will you defend me if I add jokes and trivia to pages like Pap test or Rectal examination? If not, then why is it appropriate here? Ward3001 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support you adding relative cultural information to other medical pages. How the pap test is a break through in preventative care. What percentage of women do not have them as they consider them unpleasant, etc would all be appropriate.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If cartoons and board games are appropriate here, would humor (such as jokes) be appropriate on these or other medical articles? Medical jokes are commonly found our culture, so would you support me in adding those to articles about specific medical procedures? Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mention of cultural significance is different that adding cartoons to this page. I have never suggested we add cartoons here or anywhere else for that matter. One line saying the Rorschach has had a cartoon, a movie and a board game loosely based on it and holds a significant place in the psyche of the Western world is an interesting cultural piece of information about this test.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if I find well-sourced information commenting on jokes, comedic TV shows and films, cartoons, or board games about medical procedures, place a brief summary of that commentary in a medical article, you would support it if challenged, right? Ward3001 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand your apprehension, Ward. The Rorschach is arguably one of the most well-known psychological tests. It has definitely had a social impact... As for medical articles... Rabies#Cultural impact ? (Though I would like to see something far less "trivia"-like for this article) –xenotalk 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really say I'm apprehensive. More skeptical that one set of standards isn't applied to this article and another set to other medical articles. Just speaking from painful experiences. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you comment on the cultural importance in NPOV and it is well sourced yes I would support this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think that a thoughtful and neutral and well-sourced discussion of the place of the Rorschach in contemporary culture would be quite appropriate to the page. Personally, I think the combination of absolutely rotten face validity and terrific clinical validity, plus the historical connections to the least-supportable aspects of old-school psychoanalysis and the position that has in the culture, has made it resonate with people's anxieties about having their minds read and/or controlled. But that's just me standing on one foot theorizing. Doubtless there are multiple dissertations already written on the topic. Mirafra (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, in fact I am surprised that there isn't a cultural impact section already. The test is used frequently in popular fiction, and other works. Indeed the term is now used regularly as a metaphor for all kinds of eye-of-the-beholder situations. I think that's significant. It's no different from the fact that there is an extensive socila and cultural impact section for The Pill. Lot 49atalk 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've usually heard the term "has become a Rorschach test" not so much meaning that "it can be viewed in many different ways," but more meaning that, "how you view it says a lot about you." That's why I'm saying that the Rorschach test itself, and this page about it, have both become Rorschach tests. Mirafra (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several links in this article are self-referencing. Exner Scoring System is one such example. Can some one please remove these? — 173.3.112.55 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the link you mentioned, if there are others just let us know. Chillum 03:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no such word as administrating

The word "administrating" should be changed to "administering." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.162.77 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. That being said, administering may be a better word. I am not sure. Chillum 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The English language does not have a system of official words. According to linguists, if the word can be understood then it is a word. However, some words are more formal than others in the traditional academic setting. At the same time, some belong more to writing than in speech. I cringe every time someone uses "to [poss. pronoun] chagrin..." on television because it comes off as ostentatious. You're right in the need for a change, but not in its legitimacy of use in the language. To say something isn't a word can be a statement which, however unintentional, has racial and ethnic-centric implications. 204.56.177.250 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ER Doctor is not a Pyschologist

The article states "...clinicians, including Bruce L. Smith, a psychologist and president of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods, objected that the publication would "render the results meaningless." However, not all psychologists agree. Dr. Heilman compared the publication to the publication of an eye chart..."

The way Dr. Heilman's metaphor immediately follows "...not all pyschologists agree" is confusing. It sounds like Dr. Heilman's opinion is that of a dissenting Pyschologist. But the guy is not a psychologist, he's an ER doctor. This could be easily cleared up with a new paragraph after "...not all pychologists agree".Trefalcon (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the comparison to the Snellen chart is not even remotely apt. The normative information for that is not about "which letters in which order," but about the size of the letters on the chart. The usefulness of the eye chart to detect dangerous drivers can be restored by the simple expedient of shuffling the letters -- it's much more analogous to a change of password. In fact, as far as I can recall, the last time I had to take an eye exam to renew my license, it was not on the standard Snellen chart, probably for precisely that reason. Mirafra (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that section as undue weight and self-reference. We only mention Wikipedia in articles if they are a major part of the subject, we are not a major part of the subject. See the thread I started below for details. Chillum 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what seems to be Dr. Heilman's approval of the fact that his father could use memorization of the Snellen chart to get a driving license that he may not otherwise merit. I only hope that if he gets into a fatal accident, he doesn't kill anyone other than himself. SPAdoc (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it intersting that a man who works in the ER supports having a guy lie on a test in order to enable him to drive a car without being able to see properly. It would be sadly ironic if he or his victims ended up in the same ER where Heilman works. Faustian (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no approval of this lieing. This was an example of how we do not hide / suppress / censor information just because of theoretical potential harm. We do not suppress other info with similar justification provided so why would we suppress this. If we followed what some see as sufficient justification for information removal Wikipedia would not exist. That is why this discuss is important. We do not want to set a precident.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: 1) I didn't mean to imply Heilman was a pyschologist. Bad editing when I was finalizing the text. Sorry about that. 2) The comparison to the Snellen chart may not be perfectly analogous, but it's very understandable, which is why Heilman said it and why the NYTimes writer quoted it (and why I also quoted it). RoyLeban (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, "German doctor Justinius Kerne" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Justinus Kerner" -- I could not find a regular place to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.238.134 (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self reference

I have removed the section talking about the Wikipedia controversy. In the subject of Rorschach test, Wikipedia is an insignificant part. I really don't think we need to be covering our own controversy in this article like that. I think it constitutes undue weight. This is after all a rather minor controversy in the scope of both the Rorschach test and Wikipedia. Wikipedia guideline tell us to avoid self references and that we should only mention Wikipedia in an article if Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article. We do not play a major role in this test, in fact I would say be are only tangentially related to the subject. I welcome other opinions on this matter. Chillum 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: one writeup does not a controversy make... but it may yet come. The reference is good for use elsewhere in the article, but I agree the paragraph was a bit much at the present time. –xenotalk 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the notion that the self-referential stuff is inappropriate, I think that part of the whole problem here is that WP is indeed either already a significant player, or well on its way to becoming so. It becomes a gathering place for people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that psychological tests (either in specific or in general) should not exist, and provides them with a way to collaborate on imposing that POV not just on WP, but on the field as a whole, by working towards the destruction of the scientific knowledge. Mirafra (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are a significant player. The media likes to blow things out of proportion and that is just what they are doing now. I am happy that we have found common ground in that we both believe we should avoid self-references, perhaps we can build on that common ground. Chillum 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dog's Bollocks - Psychologists peddle a lot of pretentious pseudo-science. They certainly are not worthy to be admitted to a Bsc degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.172.207 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Caveat: I don't have any affinity with this article.) In my opinion, when the New York Times writes that an organization may be damaging the very test this article is about, it should be written about in the article, even if that organization is Wikipedia. If the objectors are correct, then Wikipedia certainly is a major player. I don't think it's undue weight, though it might be temporal weight -- it seems more important now because it's fresh. Omitting it makes it look like Wikipedia is not willing to link to critical information. As it stands now, there isn't even a link. RoyLeban (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism. Undue credence to a mass media organisation with no capacity to comment in an expert manner.Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This just goes to show the cultural importance of the Rorschach. Why play does this down? I am somewhat blown away by it all... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... as I predicted, many more media organizations have picked this story up, and there's been a huge spike in internet search results for "Rorschach". –xenotalk 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevocable Harm to Authors/Dangerous Precedent

1. By putting the cards onto a large public forum (yes, it many ways, Wikipedia is more akin to a forum than an encyclopedia), not only is the test technique harmed, but so are the many, many authors who have contributed to the literature. Whatever one thinks of the Rorschach, good or bad, there have been many who have put years into writing books and publishing research on it. So while the Rorschach itself is not completely "copyright," the many years of work done by many authors (Weiner for one) is being slowly being deemed meaningless. By the way, Exner's scoring system is absolutely copyrighted material - and that's where the normative data come from (what "typical" responses are and so forth). By placing so much detail as to the scoring of the measure, I would imagine that violates Exner's copyright, no?

2. I fear that placing the cards onto Wikipedia is setting a dangerous precedent. This is a slippery slope; if Wikipedia allows this, what will keep them from basically reproducing other psychological/neuropsychological material. That would be TERRIBLY HARMFUL to not only psychologists and other behavioral scientists, but to children, families, parents - it would affect our ability to accurately evaluate conditions such as dementia, learning disabilities, developmental conditions, etc. It's akin to publishing a contemporary version of the SAT. While some don't like that test, if it were put onto Wikipedia, we'd lose a vital aspect of measuring a very important predictor of college success. Most of the standardized tests are under clear copyright, but the way some of these individuals are acting in this discussion suggests that the "everything should be free and available" ideology pervades much of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What other tests have public domain images that will, according to some, damage the value of the test? Your second argument is a complete red herring. Resolute 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the situation is perhaps worse than you realize. The information being used is well within the boundaries of fair use of scientific information and is carefully referenced, so it's not a copyright violation. Precisely the same thing could happen to other tests which are not so freely available -- the scientific process of developing and interpreting tests results in a surprisingly large amount of information being available to those who wish to work hard to find it. When that information is collected and placed in a single easily-findable location -- indeed, the first place most people go these days when looking for information -- that's where the harm you describe takes place. So every test used for psychological evaluation is vulnerable to this kind of destruction. People who believe that these tests are pseudoscience, or who believe that they might have been harmed by the tests, are actively supporting the process. Mirafra (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Takamine45's comments are well intentioned, but their second paragraph is based entirely on false assumptions along with a complete failure to assume good faith. What is to stop us from introducing copyrighted text? Our own policies do. Which is why I asked the question I did. There is a world of difference between a public domain image and copyrighted text. Since Takamine45 has either failed to understand this distinction, or willfully chooses to believe that we have made that failure, the entire argument is invalid. Honestly, I can see no possible way where the posting of copyrighted text in this fashion could pass Wikipedia's non-free content policy, so the slippery slope simply does not exist. Resolute 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the advocates for keeping the images up stated:
"let's assume that, indeed, the test will be invalidated by this page and that that will cause the death of some 15 year olds. We really shouldn't care (in our capacity as wikipedians) how many 15 year olds commit suicide because of this article; preventing the suicide of 15 year olds is not part of the mission goals, nor any consensus approved guideline I can remember. What IS our goal, however, is to create the best articles possible." Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Failing to see how that is relevant to the portion of the argument I have challenged. Resolute 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although posting copyrighted text won't happen (while the Rorschach's methods are fairly new and constantly being updated, the images they rely on are probably the only ones that are old enough to no longer be copyrighted), someone can easily post cheat sheets and discuss techniques that can compromise any psychological test without actually technically violating copyright. And I suspect that someone will try to do this at some point. Interestingly btw, psychological research has shown that wikipedia editors as a whole tend to be less conscientous than other internet users: [4]. This becomes obvious with respect to this debate.Faustian (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an entirely different argument though. Posting a cheat sheet would run afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE, and I expect you would find high support for removing such a section - especially given I believe it would likely contain either original research, or be sourced to sites that would not pass our guidelines on reliable sources. This argument can really be summed up as "don't eat these apples because someone else might eat those oranges if you do." Resolute 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to argue that with respect to placing popular responces and such on this page, and was told that the WP:NOTGUIDE is purely stylistic and has nothing to do with content. In other words, reword the guide to sound "encyclopedic" and it becomes acceptable. The function of a cheat sheet remains unchanged. Of course, the WP:NOT page has two seperate sections, one on "style and format" and a second devoted to "content" and the WP:NOTGUIDE was clearly in the "content" section. But this did not deter anybody, nor can it be expected to in the future given the precedent set here.Faustian (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns Takamine, but I'm sorry to say that you are outnumbered (at least a little) by the majority here, and on this particular article in regard to this particular issue, the majority rules here and the minority are given no consideration. It has even been argued by some among the majority that if death of people was a factor that might be influenced by placement of the images, that is of little relevance to the right of the majority to place the images as they please. But thanks for your efforts. Ward3001 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, of course, Ward, this is precisely the strategy I don't think we should be helping with. Looking back through the archives, I see that well-meaning psychologically-savvy folks have been rather consistently run off -- you and Faustian being the two major exceptions. I'm glad that Takamine45 has taken the time to present opinions in such a clear manner. I agree, it's unfortunate that this perspective is unwelcome here. Mirafra (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These assumptions of bad faith are ridicules. This is a wiki that would not exist if not for its volunteers. All are welcome as long as our policies are followed. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your assumption that psychologists are welcome here is ridiculous. And, yes, much of the Rorschach article before the images were added was done by volunteers -- psychologist volunteers. Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologists are welcome, as is anyone else, so long as they respect our policies. One of which is WP:CONSENSUS. If an individual views themselves as being "unwelcome" because they fall on the wrong side of that consensus, that is the individual's issue, not the community's. Resolute 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that in this article's case consensus has been misinterpreted by the majority to mean majority dictatorship rather than what it is according to actual policy: compromise. Originally there was a dispute in which 1/3 wanted to suppress a single image in the article body and 2/3 wanted it in the lead. A compromise was forged in which the image stayed but was put in the middle of the article rather than the top, under test materials. This soort of compromise btw has been made in other articles with similar controverises. The article on the founder of the Bahai religion which opposes depictions of their prophet has his image but not in the article lead. The article on Islam has not a single picture of Mohammad, and even the Mohammad article doesn't have his picture in the lead. But apparently Muslims are more welcome than psychologists.
At some point someone in the majority figured that with enough votes compromise wouldn't matter (there is no mechanism to enforce policy when doing so is against the majority's wishes) so they went ahead and put the image in the lead. And then later, put all the images up. Etc. In this case, psychologists are in the minority. Their opinions are rejected completely. They are often disparaged for their opinions. The talk pages are littered with comments such as, "they just care because they want to make money off the test" or "they have a conflict of interest so their words should be taken with a grain of salt" (hmm would someone object to a biologist's presence on a biology related article by stating that he or she has a conflict of interest?) etc. And after all that it's claimed that it's the psychologists' problem if they feel unwelcome!Faustian (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, freedom of information. Let the images go up, only fascists withhold data. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.201.160 (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the many years of work done by many authors [...] is being slowly being deemed meaningless." This is a strange argument. It might be clearer if you indicated how you thought that was so in this case. But in any case, many things people devote many years of work to are in fact meaningless. Шизомби (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the reading of this page http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php it seems that the Rorschach overdiagnosis people with mental illnesses they do not have. Giving someone a diagnosis of say schizophrenia they do not have and putting them on antipsycotics can increase mortality (ie the chance you will die) Therefore exposing the Rorschach to greater scrutiny will save lives. My ethics rest easy at night.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment reflects some serious confusion about psychiatric diagnosis. And your comment that exposing the Rorschach will save lives not only shows a lack of knowledge of the Rorschach, but a profound misunderstanding of scientific methods. The Rorschach (nor any test) does not diagnose anything. Practitioners make the diagnoses. The Roschach or any other test only serves as a tool in that diagnosis. You apparently missed it when this was said several times earlier on this talk page. Tests do not think for themselves. A competent practitioner is needed for the diagnosis. So to say that the Rorschach "overdiagnoses" anything is equivalent to saying that a stethescope overdiagnoses. And your comment that exposing the Rorschach will save lives is equivalent to saying that because one physician made a fatal misdiagnosis using a stethescope, then destroying all stethescopes will save lives. High school science students know better than that. If there is overdiagnoses, it's the practitioner who is doing it. Your source is written by people who make a living by criticizing the Rorschach. They themselves have never used the test, nor have they been trained in its use. Ward3001 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And moreover have largely been debunked in the literature. Relying on Wood et al too much for this article is a bit like relying on one of these guysfor an article on Global warming.Faustian (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3) Security by Obscurity? The above arguments sounds very similar to the requests of some that an encryption algorithm should not be published to make attacks harder. Unfortunately, any security that *depends* on the attacker not knowing something that you know is already broken. Similarly, a psychological (or any) test that only works if the tested person does not know the test will intrinsically be of limited value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.105.130 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point here. Everything has "limited value". Are you saying that a test in which the test items are not available in advance to the test taker has NO value? If so, then the conclusion is that all intelligence tests, all academic achievement tests, all tests that teachers use to evaluate their students, the SAT, MCATs for medical school admission, LSATS for law school admission ... I could go on and on ... all of these tests have no value. Is that what you're saying? Ward3001 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A few comments
  • This test however is not used by psychiatric's so you must mean psychological diagnosis.
    The following passage has the psychologist in the equation: Mittman found that when psychologists trained by the Rorschach Workshops classified patients based on the Rorschach CS, they misidentified more than 75% of normal individuals as psychiatrically disturbed.
    Interesting your comment that The Rorschach (nor any test) does not diagnose anything. Actually in medicine many test diagnose many thinks. A blood culture diagnosis a blood infection, an appropraite blood sugar and pH diagnosis DKA, a CT diagnosis a spinal fracture and the list goes on.
    When you say the "rorschach does not diagnose anything I completely agree.
  • The comments of "The more the test is known the more possibility there is to game it" and I did not mean that a coached subject could fool the person giving the test into making the wrong diagnosis by Smith sort of contradict each other.-Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you agree. Too bad, for Wikipedia and those you diagnose, that you completely missed the point that the Rorschach can be an invaluable tool in psychiatric diagnosis. Ward3001 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More misunderstanding of psychiatric diagnosis, James. The test doesn't have to be used by psychiatrists. Psychiatrists frequently seek diagnostic information from psychologists. I'm asked several times a month by psychiatrists to assist with diagnosis, often with a specific request for psychological testing. In fact, I spend a substantial part of my work schedule consulting with a variety of physicians regarding psychiatric diagnosis. I know in the past you've said the docs in your practice never use psychologists (if I remember correclty), but your neck of the woods is clearly the exception. I know a number of Canadian psychologists who do such diagnostic consultations. Ward3001 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I never said that a medical test cannot diagnose. You missed the point (again). I made an analogy with a stethescope. Are you saying a stethescope, absent a practitioner, can make a diagnosis? Ward3001 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any justification beyond "Your source is written by people who make a living by criticizing the Rorschach." for dismissing the above paper? Just because someone makes a living doing something they are wrong?

And you did say above that test do not diagnose.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what they teach in medical school (certainly the doctors I've personally gone to do not appear to consider the tests to be the diagnostic agents), but in psychologist school, it's considered a fundamental principle of understanding how to use and not use psychological tests. Read Sattler, Kaufman, or any other Psych Testing 101 text and you'll see it. Tests do not diagnose. Practitioners do. Tests provide us with useful information to inform our clinical judgment. For most psychological tests (the Rorschach being a notable exception), administering and scoring them correctly is really quite simple. The reason we need lots of training is precisely *because* the tests themselves do not diagnose in a vacuum. Diagnosis is a thoughtful process where multiple streams of data (other tests, interviews, questionnaires, observations, etc) are drawn together for interpretation, and each is given careful consideration as to what it is telling us about the specific person in the specific situation and how much weight should be given to each. Tests create diagnostic hypotheses, not diagnostic conclusions. Sure, some folks are less thoughtful than others, and their diagnostic conclusions are perhaps less accurate. There are klutzy folks in the medical world as well. But to say "the Rorschach diagnoses" anyone is a misuse of the term "diagnose." That is a process done by people. Mirafra (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::::: Also, the terms "psychiatric diagnosis" and "psychological diagnosis," at least in my experience, are used more-or-less interchangeably. Some psychiatrists (fewer and fewer these days, I think) do use psychological testing in their diagnostic process. But I agree with Ward that it's far more common for them to refer to a psychologist for an evaluation that doesn't fit into a ten-minute med consult slot. Mirafra (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An entire article online debunking Woods' work by one of the top forensic specialists in the country: [5]. His bio is here: [6]. Contrast his bio with Woods' vita: [7]. Woods is not a clinician but a statistician. Another article debunking Wood: [8] and a few abstrracts of other articles: [9] [10] [11]. The basic pattern: Wood et al selectively cherry pick studies that support their POV and ignore others, misuse statistics, etc. This is why their work, while generating some controversy, never became mainstream in the field as shown by the fact that 80% of clinical psychologists doing assessments still use the Rorschach and 80% of graduate programs still teach it, and why in 8,000 cases where the Rorschach was used in court it was only challenged eight times and the expert testimony based on the Rorschach was rejected once (these facts are all referenced in the article). It's why Wood et al turn to the publishing books that are sold to people like you with little knowledge within the field and who therefore become easily impressed with them. Notwithstanding this fact, even Woods claims the test is useful in some circumstances: [12]. But keep believing that minority viewpoint in order to justify your actions. Faustian (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Four quick points, as I don't have the time so many others here seem to, nor do I foresee any of this debate really going anywhere logical.

1. I would like to repeat my statements about any comments or text that take at all from John Exner's material, which is fully copyrighted. Basically, anything beyond the cards themselves, including descriptions of scoring procedures, normative responses, what is a "typical response" all is found solely within Exner's books. Let me repeat, those books are under a clear copyright protection. So basically, anything that speaks of scoring or the methodology used should not be included. By the way, despite appearing to takes bits and pieces of Exner's and placing into the article, the method itself is not being represented particularly well anyway (as is the entire manner in which some seem to believe the Rorschach, and psychological tests in general, are utilized clinically).

2. Maybe this is one of the inherent problems with an internet forum resulting in an "encyclopedia." I have always liked the idea behind projects like Wikipedia, but I must say that I find it problematic that this is all really a "numbers game" when it comes down to it. Ideally, experts within a particular field SHOULD hold more weight in a particular debate. There is an idiom "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" that seems to apply quite readily to this situation.

3. Ultimately, this is not just about the Rorschach. While Resolute was correct in that most of the more sophisticated measures are copyrighted and strongly limited by test publishers, there are several, for example, more cognitively based measures that are in the public domain. Many psychologists and neuropsychologists continue to use (in part) many of these measures (with more recent normative data) in evaluating various aspects of cognitive functioning as they relate to dementia, stroke, epilepsy, etc. In fact, many of these "test" are best described as a set of questions/task instructions; which have far greater clinical meaning to those trained in the measures than a wikipedia editor might appreciate. Having those available would do irreparable harm to those test procedures; and they would have real consequence to real people.

4. I guess my last thought is this: what GOOD does putting the Rorschach cards do for the public as a whole. Yes, yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with Wiki policy. But ask yourselves that anyway. Rather than minimizing those of us who argue against your positions or placing upon them the burden of showing that there is "harm" done, ask what good has this brought about beyond piquing somebody's curiosity. The terribly trite phrase "with great power (as in Wikipedia) comes great responsibility" nonetheless seems quite relevant here, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

point 1. above does not have any merit. Wikipedia cites information from copyrighted sources all the time. Copyright infringement begins only when lengthy portions are copied verbatim.
point 2. shows a poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. Experts in the relevant field do actually hold all weight, not just some, in determining how the topic is represented. This is WP:DUE and WP:RS which essentially says that only publications by experts need be considered in the first place.
ad 3., perhaps it is time for the psychologists to realize that this isn't 1921 anymore and that security through obscurity has been long recognized as a worthless approach by experts.
point 4. is an ideological question. It is Wikipedia's most fundamental postulate, and ideology if you like, that making as much knowledge available to as many people as possible, as openly as possible, will in the long run be beneficial to humanity. You can argue about that, but this is what Wikipedia is here to do.

--dab (��) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~ Just a small comment on the claims that the use of copyright material is prohibited in this article: copyright protects the form of expression, not the factual content, of a work. As well, selected quotation from copyright works should be fine under fair use provisions, with appropriate citation. Copyright is not designed to allow ownership of factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.174 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is patently ridiculous, Takamine45. You should know that Wikipedia is completely based on content sourced from mostly copyrighted books, and that it's fine to do that. Please read copyright law and Wikipedia policy to confirm that and obtain further information about it.
Also, you said that some things are "only found in Exner's books". That's obviously incorrect, since if you cared to actually check the sources I've used in the article for those things, they're mostly not Exner.
I'd also like to reply to your point 4: the main reason for me is that it's informative to the reader. It gives direct information about the Rorschach test. Why would they want detailed information about the Rorschach test is the reader's business, but we know that we do the moment they reach the article, and we do our best to provide it. --LjL (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First all the claimed rebuttals you presented were published BEFORE the article by Wood came out. A statistician is just the profession to show that the numbers do not added up / the data does not make sense. Wood also has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology . A finnally just because 80% of US pyschologist use this test does not mean anything. Take the Trendelenburg position for hypotension. They teach it almost universally to nursing and EMS student and it is used routinely unfortunately it is probably harmful. Science is not done by a vote of the masses.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Faustian's citations above of rebuttals after Wood et al. And you're right, science is not done by vote of the masses, and accurate scientific interpretation of the Rorschach cannot be done by vote of Wikipedians. Ward3001 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not interpreting the Rorschach. We are only providing information. If Wikipedia were published as a book than we would not be here as the information would have been published and you desenting opinion would not be taken into account. It is only the fact the we allow feed back that gives you a plateform to voice your complaints. That the majority has heard you complaint and does not think they are significant / matter / are over blown is were we stand now.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not interpreting one Rorschach administered to a patient. But you are trying to interpret the scientific qualities of the Rorschach. Doing that with quality and accuracy is not something that can be done by a vote of the masses, or by a vote of Wikipedians. (And don't say you're not voting; majority has ruled here for quite some time. To use your words, "majority has heard you complaint and does not think they are significant".) Ward3001 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In comment to "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". Yes I agree completely. That is why we are attempting to dispell the mystic surrounding psycological test by writing extensively about them. Wikipedia is a work in progress however and I would be the last one to claim that it is complete or polished at this point. Magicians by the way were up in arms when one of their members started a tv show to expose the secrets of magic. He wore a mask to protect his identity.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like how an ER doc feels himself to be qualified to pass judgment on a field he knows nothing about (comparisons to magicians) and to weigh sources that he is not even remotely qualified to understand. With respect to the field you know nothing about - yes someone can have a degree in clinical psychology and not be a clinician. Unlike an M.D. a Ph.D. conducts extensive research - called a dissertation - in order to obtain his degree. The Ph.D. is quite versatile, and with it someone can become a clinician (what most Ph.D.'s do), an academic, or both (which is what people like Meloy do). Many stats oriented clinical psychology Ph.D.s never see patients. Woods is not a clinician, as seen in his vita: [13] he last worked in a clinical or applied setting 19 years ago, prior to obtaining his Ph.D. (so he never saw patients on a doctoral level). He's been a stats guy at a university that's off the radar in the field (University of Texas at El Paso - not meaning to knock it, just saying it's not known as a major intellectual powerhouse. It doesn't have a ranked Ph.D. program while Meloy's UC San Diego is number 9, above Princeton and Columbia, according to the National Research Council[14]) who got a lot of publicity outside the field with his article. Your very behavior here - almost exclusive reliance on a small minority of people whose ideas have been largely dismissed in the the field - is evidence of gross lack of understanding about the topic you are trying to write about and pass judgment on. Have you even read the articles I gave you links to? Were you capable of understanding them (this comment is not meant pejoratively)? I suppose the second one might have been a bit complex but the first written by Meloy seems to have been pretty clearly written. The second page of the review outlines some of the specific problems with Woods work. Here it is again: [15]. The author's bio is here: [16]. And Woods' vita, again: [17]. Once again, to make it even clearer, Woods et al generated some controversy and some of their ideas were useful (I may be mistaken but it seems the DEPI scale had to be revised as a result of their efforts), but all in all their work was largely dismissed for the reasons outlined in the papers I posted links to and you ignored. Woods' opinions have carried much more weight among people like you who know nothing about the subject than from those within the field. But as an ER doc from Moose Jaw gaining international attention for comments on a psychological test, I'm sure you can understand the appeal of PR over actual substance.Faustian (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you that it would be terrific if we could write an article that explained the current and historical use of the Rorschach in clear language accessible to a non-professional reader, one that would dispel the mystique around the test and help people understand what it is and isn't useful for, what the results do and don't mean, so that they could make more informed choices about whether to consent to evaluations and so that they could better understand the results of evaluations. That's why I came here in the first place, although I feel that I cannot contribute to the article until we can come to some kind of agreement that allows professional input. But I agree with the little knowledge being a dangerous thing comment. You don't even know the most basic things about psychological assessment, and you're coming in and thinking that this is something easy to teach yourself. Some things in psych are easy to teach yourself. This just happens not to be one of them. But you don't even know what you don't know. Mirafra (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess there we have it. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your self-promotion so reminiscent of that of the famous American economics and tax policy expert Joe the Plumber?Faustian (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if we did not provide information pertaining to the Rorschach that would be a dangerous precedent. Science does not work by secret socities but by open discourse. Does any other scientific field function like this?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the type of information. A lot of information is good. In some specific cases it is not. Certainly there is secrecy in the scientific field. When conducting experiments we don't tell participants who is getting a placebo and who is not; doing so would ruin the experiment. The specific information you're adding is the equivalent of automatically telling all potential participants whether or not not they are using a placebo.Faustian (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not similar. We tell people there is a 50/50 chance or a 75/25 chance. We do not than hide the message section post publication for fear of people figuring out how we obtained the results.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a psychologist does not hide the Rorschach images from a patient taking the testing once testing begins, only before; just as drug study patients are told after the study what they took, not before. Ward3001 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But (aside from the above, which I pointed out last time already), don't you get that this is not a controlled experiment, unless somehow you think life is? This is real life, where people haven't decided to take part in a controlled experiment, and some of them have decided to consult an encyclopedia. If that's not consistent with your assumptions for administering the Rorschach, change your assumptions. If you can't, that sucks.
You can't force people to partecipate in a controlled experiment where you enforce secrecy. That is just not right. --LjL (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is not a controlled experiment. James claimed that there is no secrecy in science and I was just giving an obvious example where secrecy is necessary to science - people cannot know if they are in a placebo group or not for the scientific study to work. He mentioned that prior to the experiment people are told that there is a 50/50 or 75/25 chance of them being given a placebo. Note they are not told 100% which group they are in. It is a secret. What you are trying to do is comprable to creating a "key" whereby everyone everywhere who takes part in a study will know whether he's in a placebo group or not. And nobody is "forcing" people to participate in controlled experiements here. But by trying to ruin the test you are trying to "force" people not to benefit from a useful tool.Faustian (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I understand that you see this from a quite different perspective, but ask yourself what the "default" is: 1) the images and most information are in the public domain 2) this in an encyclopedia -> the "default" is for an encyclopedia to publish public information. So the ones pushing to do that aren't the ones attempting to force anything; the ones attempting to withhold information are. I'm not making a judgment here, but it's simply the way it is. You may not like Wikipedia's rules, and you may believe an exception to some of them should be made here, but you should realize that the normal rule is to follow the rule. --LjL (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even study subjects are told after-the-fact whether they were given placebos. Those forced by the court to take Rorschach tests are never told the basic facts about the test. That is just wrong, and benefits no one. If publishing the inkblots here informs those who have to take the test, then that it is a huge benefit to them. Roger (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody objects to describing "basic facts" about the test. Indeed, they ought to be published. The objection is specifically to test items' and test answers. To LjL: correct me if I'm wrong but is copyright the only thing keeping you (or wikipedia) from publishibnng the questions and answers to for example medical licensing exams, civil service exams, etc. on wikipedia?Faustian (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. Well, and I guess the fact that simply nobody bothered to even when there was no copyright in place to begin with... most of those are less "fascinating" than Rorschach, you could say. Also, it can be hard to know whether or not they're copyrighted to begin with, if parties involved are silent about it.
Needless to say, though, there's also a number of things that simply should not be published on Wikipedia for other reasons: for instance, if someone managed to steal the national final grade tests for this year (we have those, not sure about other countries), that wouldn't be notable to begin with (it would also have been obtained illegally). But that's a slightly different situation, I suppose. --LjL (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The funniest thing is looking around on how available Exner's book was I found Scoring the Rorschach: Seven Validated Systems (2009) on kindle s well as Essentials of Rorschach Assessment (Essentials of Psychological Assessment) (2000). The Rorschach, Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation (2002) by John E. Exner Old copies of Exner's work on how to actually do the test are available on Amazon and the psychologist and psychiatrist community is wining about Wikipedia?!? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK. Come guys the horse is not only out of the barn he is in the freaking next country a continent away and has been for YEARS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also funny that with Exner's writings so widely available, no one here except the psychologists has read them. Ward3001 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also funny that with all the other reliable sorces there are around, you keep and keep and keep insisting there's basically only Exner. Are you biased? --LjL (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm a scientist. Exner's system is unquestionably the most scientifically solid system in existence. BruceGrubb made a sweeping generalization about the Rorschach that flies in the face of scientific facts, so the most effective response to his absurd claim is with sound scientific research. Someone can prefer Exner (because it is more likely than any other system to yield reliable and valid results) without being ignorant of the other Rorschach systems, such as those of H. Rorschach, Klopfer, Piotrowski, and Beck. In fact, the Exner system began by extracting the most scientifically verifiable aspects of those other systems, applying the scientific method to those variables, then adding an immense number of scientifically verifiable variables to create a superior system for most purposes. Some of us understand most of the other systems but prefer the Exner system. Others who edit the article, however, know little or nothing about the Exner system, nor Rorschach's original system, nor Klopfer's system, nor Piotrowski's system, nor Beck's system, nor any widely used system. Are you biased? Ward3001 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are talking about "systems". Are you implying that we should primarily source the article on the "original" books about the respective systems (Exner or others)? If so, I suggest you look at WP:Primary sources, which should clarify that Wikipedia is primarily supposed to use secondary sources, and only secondarily primary sources as a possibility that should be employed with much care when there are no valid alternatives. I do think there are quite a few secondary sources about the Rorschach. --LjL (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I didn't say anything about primary sources. There are a huge number of secondary sources available about the systems. Those sources have not been used to edit the article in reference to any of the major systems in recent months. You refer to "systems" as if it's a dirty word. I'm saying that someone cannot make sense out the Rorschach (and write sensibly in the article) unless he/she understands the interpretive systems. If you don't discuss the Rorschach in terms of the details of one (or all) of the systems, including Hermann Rorschach's system, all you have left for the article are the images of the inkblots. No psychologist has ever used the Rorschach clinically without using one or more systems. Are you implying that Exner Vol. 1 only discusses Exner's system? Ward3001 (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No; I am implying that it is a primary source rather than a secondary source describing the system. I'm not using "systems" as a dirty word, I'm simply point out that if we use the "systems" themselves as a source, then we're using a primary source rather than secondary.
I'm also a bit confused now by the fact that you seem to be saying we should describe the systems in detail, rather than writing in "general" terms "describing" something indefinite. Not that I don't agree, I just find it strange coming from you, given that your camp always seemed to me as trying to push forward the idea that the less actual detail about test administration (as opposed to its history, controversies, and whatever doesn't really give any information about the test itself), the better, because detail was claimed to be harmful to potential test takers. --LjL (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there does seem to be a lot of confusion. You acknowledge that Exner Vol. 1 discusses systems other than the Exner system, but then you say it's not a secondary source. Please tell me how Exner Vol. 1 is not a secondary source in its discussion of the systems of H. Rorschach, Klopfer, Beck, and Piotrowski. If your response is that it is a primary source in discussing the Exner system but not the other systems, why did you ask me if I'm biased or rebut me with "Exner, Exner, Exner" (as you did in a previous post) whenever I mention Exner Vol. 1?
My "camp" (whatever that is; better to refer to us as psychologists and those who respect the psychologists' opinions) has never argued that less detail at an encylcopedic level is better. We (or at least I) have argued that stringing together almost random bits and pieces of information that do not coherently tie into an interpretive system (or systems) does not improve anyone's understanding of the Rorschach (beyond what was already in the article) and, in fact, can give misleading (if not inaccurate) information about the test. That's why, as a whole, the article is not as good today as it was a few months ago. Understanding the Rorschach requires understanding at least one of the systems. And one reason the Exner system is the most widely used worldwide is that it is the most comprehensive of the systems, as well as the most scientifically sound. Ward3001 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"why did you ask me if I'm biased" - but clearly because Exner is hardly the only secondary source there is about the Rorschach, and you make it seem like other source (perhaps most specifically those used in the article) are worthless. --LjL (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for your "camp" arguing for less detail, I'm sure I've seen such arguments quite plainly before, but since these pages have become too unwieldy to find stuff in, I'll jump on the chance of pointing out a fresh one. This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder if your "camp" would like to have an encyclopedic article about the Rorschach that actually includes any meaningful information at all. I have really started to think not. --LjL (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand Mirafra's point because you do not understand the details of test interpretation. That's not a criticism; it's easy to misunderstand something if you know little about it. It's quite possible to put detail into an article on the Rorschach without getting into the very specific issues of coding and use of a structural summary of the data to derive interpretations. Most people would find those details, which often require administration of hundreds of Rorschachs to become competent, very boring. So no, my "camp" doesn't mind more detail of accurate information at an encyclopedic level. That would not require adding hundreds of thousands of words that might be found in a coding and interpretation textbook. But I've really started to wonder if your "camp" would like to have an encyclopedic article about the Rorschach that actually includes any accurate information at all. I have really started to think not. Ward3001 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that Exner is the only secondary source. In fact, I said there is a huge number of secondary sources. And I never said that any source is worthless. What I did say (I'm quoting myself) is that "stringing together almost random bits and pieces of information that do not coherently tie into an interpretive system (or systems) does not improve anyone's understanding of the Rorschach (beyond what was already in the article) and, in fact, can give misleading (if not inaccurate) information about the test. That's why, as a whole, the article is not as good today as it was a few months ago". So again, why did you ask me if I'm biased or rebut me with "Exner, Exner, Exner" whenever I mention Exner Vol. 1? Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained. --LjL (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... if anyone can help me find the explanations, I'd appreciate it. Ward3001 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the psychologists are worrying unnecessarily here: I don't see how this article overall could harm the test results, as the article is incomprehensible to a lay person! The article is currently so badly written that I can't begin to figure out how on earth I would need to answer on the test in order to ensure that I was diagnosed as sane. I have read the article several times and feel I have learnt nothing at all about how the test is actually used to diagnose anything, beyond the fact that the description of the content of the images is hardly used at all, and thus publishing the images and their typical descriptions can't possibly harm the test results; the rest is incomprehensible to me. 86.162.10.97 (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article is incomprehensible. That is because it is designed in such a way that psychologists cannot contribute in order to clear it up. Because the images and "answers" (however inaccurate) make the article harmful, it is unethical for psychologists, the experts on this complex topic, to contribute to it. So they do not. As a result we have the mess that currently exists. Instead of an encyclopedic accurate clearly written article that includes all information other than the specific test items and test answers, we have a semiaccurate incomprehensible article with semiaccurate answers and images. BTW, after all this massive exposure, psycholgists still haven't stepped in to fix the article. I guess ethics counts for something.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err... or maybe it's because the article has been fully protected from editing after the massive exposure? --LjL (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or because edits that *were* made were promptly reverted? The history seems to indicate that... No, the article is incomprehensible because it's hard to write an article about a topic you don't understand well, and those of us who would be in a position to help (the editors who actually know the field well) are being told to go away. Mirafra (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has said "psychologist are not welcome, go away". Users who cannot follow our policies however will be shown the door. If your profession's ethics prevent you from editing or respecting Wikipedia policy that is not Wikipedia's fault. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again Gary. I was literally told to "go away" and edit another encyclopedia by LjL. You can take my word for it, but before you deny it and demand proof from me, and make me dig it up from the archives, you please read the archives yourself. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As was I. And the suggestion that we should go somewhere else was a broad one, basically saying that experts in psychological testing should go to some other encyclopedia. (I was especially negatively impressed by the notion that we should facilitate the work that we feel to be unethical, or intentionally bypass our ethical restrictions, by creating a page on some other encyclopedia that could then be imported here. Mirafra (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't tell anyone they must "go away", I simply told them that if they feel bound by some ethics to not edit this article, then they may "go away" and edit another on another encyclopedia. I'm not bound by your ethics, you are, so please don't say I "make" you go away, because that is a lie. As to Mirafra's "notion", well, the way it works with free licenses (including Wikipedia's and Citizendum's, and I'm very sure you know that free licensing is a very important part of both) is that you don't control what other people do with your edits. If you don't like that, then you can find another encyclopedia that is not based on free licenses.
Oh, and make sure that, thanks to the last sentence above, in a couple of days you claim to have been "literally told to go away" by me. --LjL (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LjL, I can't address what you said to others, but I DO know what you said to me. There was no suggestion that if I feel this way or that way then I may want to go away. You told me to "go away and leave us alone". Period (full stop to my British/Canadian friends). I realize that people sometimes say things they don't exactly mean when looking at it in hindsight. So you can tell us what your intentions were in such a comment, but you cannot change the words you wrote. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

We state that the test is commonly used in the USA should we mention that it is rarely used in the UK? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/29/rorschach-answers-wikipedia --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase referring to unknown critics ("critics dismiss it as out-of-date and it is rarely used in the UK") is hardly a basis for leaping to such a sweeping conclusion. Identify the critics. They may know little about the test, and they may be only two or three in number. Ward3001 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assessment, the quote contains two distinct clauses, the first does involve unnamed critics who "dismiss it as out-of-date" but the second "and it is rarely used in the UK" is not attributed to those critics, it is a statement of fact by a reliable publication. Guest9999 (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results citations

Can the citation for the popular/common responses be made explicitly clear? If it is Samual Beck, then can we explain briefly who he is, and when and where he said these were the popular responses, and perhaps how he is qualified to speak on the subject? Vivaldi (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do. Have you checked out the article ("History", last paragraph)? "The test scoring system originally created by Rorschach was improved after his death by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others."
Aside from that, if Beck himself is notable enough, I suppose you're free to create an article about him.
And the citation for the common responses is explicitly clear. It's currently citation number 62: Alvin G. Burstein, Sandra Loucks. (1989). Rorschach's test : scoring and interpretation. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.. p. 72. ISBN 9780891167808.
--LjL (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Publicity etc

The Rorschach test has been around for some 80 years - so there will be some familiarity generally with it, given that the images have remained constant over that period.

The Internet has been around for 20 years which will have increased such familiarity.

Society itself has changed over the past 80/20 years ('this time 20 years ago' the Berlin Wall was still up) - so interpretations/cultural aspects will have changed (and consider the claims of cultural bias in IQ tests - and interpretations of the prophecies of Nostradamus).

There is general familiarity with the theories of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung and many other psychiatrists - but this is not considered to invalidate their methods - nor the Ishihara color test.

The Snellen chart and related eye tests, exist in various forms - so why not the Rorschach test?

Whatever the arguments on the other side 'the spread of information cannot be prevented' (which is why study exams are changed every year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The norms are, in fact, updated to reflect changes in cultural norms. And interpretations of stuff not in the norms tables are also permitted to change as needed. Practitioners often consult with each other in order to improve the reliability of that process.
We've explained extensively before why simply changing the blots is not as trivial as shuffling the letters on an eye chart. Short version: For one thing, you've got to recreate the norms tables about what people in different clinical and nonclinical populations see and how they talk about what they see. That's a huge undertaking even within itself, although, as I just said, it does get done periodically. Note that creating norms from scratch typically requires far more extensive investments of time and money than simply updating them. Additionally, you then have to re-do the thousands of studies that established clinical validity for so many more different clinical and nonclinical populations. Just because a certain type of response at a certain level was correlated with a certain psychological characteristic when one set of blots was used, does not mean that this will necessarily be true when a new set of blots will be used. The old data can give us clues as to where to look, but it can't tell us what we might find.
And to make matters worse, some of the most useful information relies on data that is not easy to get -- for example, the Rorschach is frequently used to predict suicidality, to determine whether or not someone is likely to be able to remain safe outside of a hospital environment. To re-create that would require having a large quantity of new-Rorschach results that were administered to people who committed suicide shortly thereafter. So you'd have to convince Institutional Review Boards at hospitals all over the country to let you administer a brand-new test that gives no information because it's brand-new to a population that is highly vulnerable and thus has only questionable ability to give truly informed consent to participation in research. On the hopes that some of them would kill themselves shortly after the test administration so that you could analyze their data. This isn't the 1960s -- standards for protection of human subjects are very high. Oh, and you'd have to train hundreds of clinicians on your new method and compensate them for their additional time. Not that you couldn't do this, but boy, it would be quite an expensive and extensive project, just to get data for one clinical index.
The concern here is not so much that the spread of information must be prevented -- in fact, most of the information is publicly accessible in scholarly sources -- but that the re-presentation of that information in easily-findable and easily-understandable form is changing the playing field. Psychology as a field fundamentally cannot keep up -- our experiments take years to do. The paradoxical effect could well be to push psychology away from academia and towards industry (which has different standards regarding the publication of data) as our creators of tests. (There is some movement in that direction at present.).
It's ironic, the extent to which folks here are attempting to direct the functioning of a field in which they do not work, while also rejecting any suggestions that people who are members of both this community and of the scientific community might have something to say about how the encyclopedia should work. That is, you're happy to tell us what we should do as psychologists and to insist that we have no right to become fully part of you and to make suggestions about what we as a large group of encyclopedia-writers should do. This is not meant as a personal attack on anyone, just as an observation about process. Mirafra (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to interject, whether it is important or not, but just kind of a "for the record"-type thing. The Rorschach Test images were also printed in William Poundstone's Big Secrets about 20 years ago. This is not a scholarly work, rather it's a popular work, and it, too, includes the "right answers" should you ever be asked to take the test. In fact, his "answers" are more in-depth than Wikipedia's. Squad51 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which probably doesn't take very much since the "answers" on Wikipedia are from decade old Beck and just sketchy examples of the one statistically most common response. --LjL (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much more irresponsible can we get? A couple of weeks ago I commented that this article is approaching the level of irresponsibility of the amateur websites that purportedly tell someone what the best answers are, but in reality tell you how to produce a pathological Rorshcach. We get closer and closer every day. My advice to anyone reading this who may take the test: try to put everything in this article and talk page out of your mind; tell your test administrator if you read the article and suggest that he read it; he/she may very well conclude that, unfortunately, you cannot obtain the usual benefits of taking the test. Ward3001 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how we might be getting "closer and closer", compared to your last rant before this one, considering the article is full-protected. --LjL (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think editors are the only people who read talk pages? Consider the comment "includes the "right answers" should you ever be asked to take the test. In fact, his "answers" are more in-depth than Wikipedia's". Ward3001 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone so chooses to check out a (huge) talk page, that's their prerogative, but talk pages are not part of Wikipedia proper. Yes, the cat is very much out of the bag, but that's not really ontopic for here as long as it's not the article we're talking about. --LjL (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any issue related to the article or talk page is relevant here. And I never said it's not "their problem". Any time someone is harmed it's "their problem." I asked how irresponsible can we get? And it appears to be quite irresponsible. Ward3001 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information; in the UK, where I am, the continuing agitation regarding this topic has found its way today into the popular press. So the fact that the "answers" are available on this site is now generally known. I am afraid that the efforts of our Clinical Psychologist editors has proved counter-productive. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scholar papers challenging it.

Doing a little looking around I found two very potential useful articles critical of the Rorschach test as a diagnostic tool:

Wood, James M. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Howard N. Garb, M. Teresa Nezworski (2000) "The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis: A critical review, with a backward look at Garfield (1947)" Journal of Clinical Psychology 56:3 Pages 395 - 430

Wood, James M. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Howard N. Garb, M. Teresa Nezworski (2000) "Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000)" Journal of Clinical Psychology 56:3 Pages 441 - 448

If the names look familiar they should; they are the SAME authors of "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading". Some quotes out of these articles should prove most illuminating.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is something from 2006 by the same author: http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Spring06/practitioner/rorschach.php --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And brief rebuttal: [18].Faustian (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article linked above (and linked again) ends with a UK doctor who used it at Broadmoor Hospital, a rather... shall we say intense... place who is openly skeptical about the test as well. --Mask? 17:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)(fix my link, sorry :) --Mask? 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Can anyone find something written by anyone besides Wood, Lilienfield, Garb, or Nezworski? The writings of those authors have been largely debunked, so it's misleading to repeatedly present them and only them. If that's all the critics here can come up with, I think that tells us something about where criticism of the Rorschach stands in the mainstream of personality assessment. There are some legitimate criticisms of the Rorschach out there, but most of what I've read (written in the past 15 years; anything older is outdated) focuses on specific issues (such as active and passive movement) and do not make a sweeping dismissal of the Rorschach as a whole. As Faustian said, if you want a minority and largely unscientific perspective about global warming, go the the extremist critics of global warming. If you want a minority and unscientific perspective about the Rorschach, go to Wood, Lilienfield, Garb, or Nezworski. Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way James, for your PR campaign in the media, you might need a little more than Wood et al. Even some non-psychologists know that a few critics don't make up the entire scientific community? Have you hired an agent? Are you scheduled with Oprah yet? Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some more challenges:
Viglione Jr, Donald J. ; J. S. Tanaka (1997) "Problems in Rorschach Research and What to Do About Them" Journal of Personality Assessment, 1532-7752, 68:3, Pages 590 – 599
Hunsley, J; J M Bailey (2002) "Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence: The utility of the Rorschach in clinical assessment" Psychological assessment 13(4):472-85.
I should point out that Ward3001's insistence that these claims are refuted are his to prove by giving us the papers that do refute them.
READ the talk page Bruce. Faustian posted links to articles, one written by a top forensic psychologist with credentials far superior to those of Wood et al., that very effectively rebut Wood et al. It's on the talk page. Furthermore, the rebuttals have been linked in the article for a long time (unless a pro-image editor decided to remove them). You just need to look before jumping in telling me my claims are "mine to prove". As I point out a few lines below, there's lots of glancing and spewing superficialities here, but there's not much actual reading going on. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The " Concerning the Current Status of Rorschach Assessment" is in Editorial and Opinion section. It doesn't even tell you who the blasted author is in the article. The "CyberPsychology & Behavior" link was totally useless to the point at hand, he used wikipedia itself as evidence in other link (totally useless and a Strawman argument), the Meloy piece is a comment not a formal article, the Ganellen and Miller articles are a response to Wood of 1999 or earlier and therefore useless in contesting statements made from 2000-2009 and the infroworld link wasn't working and since Faustian was too lazy to do the link in an intelligent manner (like Wood, James M. (2003) M. Teresa Nezworski, and Howard N. Garb. "What's Right With the Rorschach?" Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice so if the link doesn't work you have no freaking idea where it goes to.
Faustian's counter references reminds me an poster on youtube to the James Randi, "Head-On" and Homeopathy video who tried to use Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61, 12:1197-1204. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015 as an example of an article refuting "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005).--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there's nothing wrong with editorial, opinion, or comment if they are scientifically based as these are, especially Meloy. Look at the post from Faustian comparing the credentials of Meloy with those of Wood; Meloy is a internationally recognized expert; Wood has virtually no clinical experience. Don't make up your own rules about what is considered a rebuttal. And the fact that Ganellen and Miller articles respond to earlier work of Wood et al in no ways negates the value of the rebuttal, because Wood et al. repeat many of their arguments in various sources. But if you want another source, read this one from 2005. I'm sure, of course, you'll suddenly come up with another unique criterion to exclude that rebuttal. It seems that by your standards, anything that supports Wood et al. is acceptable; anything that rebuts it is not a good source. And if you want more articles, find the comment by SPAdoc referring you to a pdf of the Society for Personality Assessment review of the Rorschach literature; find the reference list in that article and read those articles. SPAdoc's comment may be in the archives by now, so look there before you make any false accusations about what I'm referring to. There's plenty out there if you're open minded enough to find it and read it. Ward3001 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That "The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statements by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment" Journel of Personality Assessment 85(2) 219-237 (this is how you do a reference Ward3001, not just throw in a link going to who knows where because you are too blasted lazy) paper is on par with the tobacco makers telling you that smoking tobacco is healthy. As far as "make up your own rules" these are not my rules but my best understanding of the rules as explained to me by Wikipedia administrator User:Akhilleus who said Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 stated "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." was not usable in the Christ myth theory article despite Anthropology of Consciousness being a peer reviewed journal published by the American Anthropological Association and he wanted to remove Price from the article despite the fact the man had published Journal for the Study of the New Testament ("one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies"), Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith ("The peer-reviewed journal of the ASA"), Themelios ("international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith"), Journal of Ecumenical Studies ("The premiere academic publication for interreligious scholarship since 1964"), Evangelical Quarterly, Journal of Psychology and Theology, and Journal of Unification Studies) simply because the statements were self published. If you think these interpretations are little wonky I suggest you take it up with the Wikipedia administrator User:Akhilleus who came up with them in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable opinions backed up by reliable sources should be mentioned. Akhilleus has not weighed in on this matter that I saw, and Wikipedia administrators don't define the rules, nor are their statements on matters of content privileged more than those of other wikipedians in any way. This article is not Christ myth theory, and the rule is WP:V, not just whatever some random admin or Wikipedian not participating in this discussion happened to say once, as here, it is an out of context (irrelevent) statement. --Mysidia (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Akhilleus did wade on the issue and not just on Christ myth theory talk board but on the Reliable sources one as well. Furthermore, digging around I found Herbert, Wray (2009) "Analyze This: The real problem with the Rorschach test: It doesn't work" Newsweek Web Exclusive Jul 30, 2009 stated "The journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this PSPI report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." putting the whole 'Wood has been disproved' claim on the questionable side if not in the WP:OR bin. Newsweek is a national newspaper and so fits a key requirement of WP:RS and the article is on the subject. Despite my own efforts to change it WP:RS has no real formal ranking of sources so unless someone can pull a peer reviewed article that directly supports (WP:RS's bold not mine) the claim that Wood's research is refuted, debunked or whatever can be regarded as WP:OR violating WP:NPOV. The Newsweek article stating Wood's 2000 paper "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach" creates a real problem for those who keep claiming he is a fringe nut.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BruceGrubb, the link I placed (not the full citation you gave) is a very common means of providing a source for readers of a talk page, so your personal attack on me is against policy as well as incorrect. And the source that you (of course) dismissed is from a peer reviewed publication and is written by the leading experts in the field. Faustian has provided other sources. And your ranting about anthropology has nothing to do with the clinical use of a psychological test in a mental health setting. It's fine if anthropologists don't find the Rorschach useful in their work; I never suspected that they would. Psychologists find it very useful, and that is the focus of our attention here. Ward3001 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even Wood says the Rorschach test is "useful". His main argument is that it is not useful for some of the purposes that it is being put to. Big difference. Also, just because it is "very common" to use footnote style links on talk pages doesn't mean it it is good ( I consider it a horrible idea). Links can break or sites go temporarily out of order and when someone years later goes over these talk pages in the archives I think they would like to know where or what in the sam hill the links are going to before they click on them. For example reference 61 should read Cohen, Noam (July 28, 2009). "A Rorschach Cheat Sheet on Wikipedia?". New York Times. Retrieved Aug 2, 2009.. Now isn't that more informative before you even click on the link then what is there or simply [19]?
I noticed you didn't really address the issue of Newsweek stating that the Wood report "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." Any proof that Newsweek doesn't know what it is talking about?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your proof that a magazine in the popular press has a better idea about a scientifically-based test than all the peer-reviewed journals that have presented decades of well-conducted research on the topic? Ward3001 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that anthropologists have been trying to use Rorschach in the field in their efforts to create a field of psychological anthropology. The result of that as Melford E. Spiro said in his "Anthropology and Human Nature" article has been poor even though the efforts go all the way back to the 1940s ("The Rorschach technique in the study of personality and culture"). The situation got such that Allen, James ; Richard H. Dana (2004) "Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural and Multicultural Rorschach Research" Journal of Personality Assessment, 82:2 pages 189 - 206 was written and seemingly ignored by the anthropological community. These 60 years worth of anthropological research indicates that while Rorschach is great for finding culture differences between groups it is pathetic in finding any kind of general conscious--a key requirement of the psychological claim regarding it to be worth beans. The whole thing with the Rorschach test mirrors that with Homeopathy--despite researchers showing that the research supporting it is questionable it still gets favorable write up in some of the best medical journals in the world. This is despite by basic physics and chemistry there is no way Homeopathy can work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, please fully explain "it is pathetic in finding any kind of general conscious--a key requirement of the psychological claim regarding it to be worth beans", and please back up what you say with reliable sources from psychological test experts. I've studied psychological testing in clinical settings for about three decades, and I've never heard of the requirement that any test should find "any kind of general conscious". I've read a lot about the need for reliability, validity, and psychometric soundness, but never the requirement for "general conscious". Ward3001 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Viglione is one of the leading Rorschach researchers in the world. If you actually read the article you cite (which I just did), he talks about the "impressive empirical support" for the Rorschach. Identifying concerns about how research is conducted and how it can be improved is a normal part of the scientific process.
The Hunsley and Bailey article is part of a special issue of the journal, where researchers from different points of view were invited to discuss the issues in, again, a normal part of the scientific process. It would be appropriate to include all of the articles from that special issue. And again, to actually read them intelligently. Mirafra (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a part of the problem here Mirafra. There's lots of search engine use and uncovering an article title that looks like it opposed the Rorschach, but there's not much actual reading of the sources. Ward3001 (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that one of the major problems with the page in general is the WP:UNDUE weight that is given to this minority opinion. More ironies, really. Mirafra (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the psychologists hearts are in the right place but trying to keep a secret scientific club going in the 21st century/information age? Is there any other scientific field attempting this? Their attempts are futile and they must know this. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" speaks for itself.
It looks like everyone in the world will have seen these images soon. It is the APA's policy and your efforts to inforce it that has brought the medias attention to this issue. If editors would have allowed wikipedia to add encyclopdic information without attempts at censorship then maybe the Rorschach images would have not made international news but have remained a historical and clinical curiosity.
And another quote "Is it not the responsibility of those we entrust our medical care to be aware of and proactive about concerns such as the corroded value of certain diagnostic tool? Rather than bemoaning the inevitable" [20] ie. welcome to the information age.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRT WP:UNDUE editors express the opinion they find most compelling. If you think the proponents of the test are not well represented please represent them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except those who understand the test here are outnumbered by those who do not understand it. And in this particular article, the minority is ignored and the majority makes all the decisions. Hence, regardless of what the experts here say on the talk page, the article has been under the control of those who do not understand the test for several months now. Ward3001 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page, like all pages, is controlled by wikipedean policies. No original research is allowed and sources are properly documented. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. The problem is that in order to determine how much weight to give to various sides of a highly technical professional debate, it really helps to have some understanding of the highly technical professional issues. There are a few people publishing on one side of the argument. There are many others publishing on the other side. To create a synthesis of both of those sides, giving a neutral point of view that reflects the weight of scientific consensus, is quite challenging. It's like writing the pages on global warming -- "equal time" doesn't cut it. To create that neutral synthesis requires thoughtful judgment and a thorough understanding of the ins and the outs of the topic. It's not original research to write the article. Under normal circumstances, one would hope that the normal process of argument towards consensus would help create the right balance. But here we have an article where one group of editors has declared another group's position (ironically the editors who have the best professional knowledge of the subject) invalid, and has made changes to the page that effectively prevent those who disagree with them from participating in the process. They've effectively subverted WP's policies to serve their POV. Sad. Mirafra (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's lip service, Gary. In the past few days, I have been told to go away and edit another encyclopedia. "Doc" James has said (and this is a direct quote), "the majority has heard your [psychologists'] complaint and does not think they are significant". Give me one example in which an opinion expressed by me, Faustian, Mirafra, or SPAdoc resulted in a substantive change in the article within the last 30 days. If you can't, consider whether the repetitive parroting of the phrase "this page is controlled by Wikipedia policies" serves any purpose to further the truth for this specific article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)cl[reply]
Ward your free to edit the document like anyone else. Endless repetition of the same arguments has cause most to tune you out or bite you in frustration. I understand this is a sad state of affairs for you and believe or not I sympathize with your position but ultimately your goals do not look compatible with the encyclopedia's mission. This is not likely to change. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missed my point again, Gary. So let me try to simplify. I didn't say I don't have the capability of clicking "Edit" and then editing (if I chose to violate ethics). I said psychologists have been told to "go away"; our comments about the article (not editors) have been threatened with removal; we have been told that the "majority" doesn't consider our opinions significant. And that's just the tip of the iceberg over the last week or so. It's crystal clear that the "majority" (all non-psychologists) gives the "minority" (mostly psychologists) no consideration in the majority's control of the article, despite the fact that the minority knows much more about the subject matter. So your repetitive "according to Wikipedia policy", although perhaps well-intentioned, says absolutely nothing about what's really going on in the control of this article. It's just a reflection of the unfulfilled ideals of Wikipedia, not the true state of affairs for this article. If you disagree, I'll ask you again: Give me one example in which an opinion expressed by me, Faustian, Mirafra, or SPAdoc resulted in a substantive change in the article within the last 30 days. Ward3001 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this "go away" is if the responses have been like Ward3001's not one single peer reviewed paper actually refuting Wood has been produced; rebuttals are not refutation. Never mind the 60 years worth of anthropological work that shows that the Rorschach test may have problems cross culturally knocking a key issue of its usability without cultural bias suspect. The Chicken Little reaction by the psychologist and psychiatrist community including claiming the Rorschach test is still under copyright when it is in fact publish domain in most of the world has not helped the credibility on the pro side of the issue. Never mind the fact that even among scholarly papers that support the test a few admit that it has been used in manners for which it is totally unsuited.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously in error here, Bruce. As I pointed out above in response to one of your demands for information already on the talk page, Faustian has posted links to excellent articles by top researchers that rebut Wood et al. And the links have been in the article for a long time. You just didn't bother to READ the talk page (or the article). And I've also asked you above to give us some details that make sense to the field of psychological testing in your ramblings about anthropology. I've studied psychological testing for several decades and have not run across any support for your claims that anthropologists have determined that the Rorschach is useless. This is a psychological test. You need to cough up some really solid evidence that the important factor in deciding the utility of the Rorschach in clinical psychology hinges on the opinion of ... an anthropologist? Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have shown above most of Faustian's links are useless for the issue at hand (article too old for the issue at hand, comments rather than formal articles, etc), nevermind he is too lazy to provide proper links so you have some idea what the blazes you are going to. Never mind that even Wood acknowledges that the Rorschach test is good for something--just not what it tends to be used for. Even Viglione accepted the fact there were "Problems in Rorschach Research" and then stated on how to address those problems. Trying to say Wood is claiming the Rorschach test is totally useless is a misrepresentations of his position. Some more article that should better flesh out that position follow:
Garb, Howard N. James M. Wood, Scott O. Lilienfeld and M. Teresa Nezworski (2005) "Roots of the Rorschach controversy" Clinical Psychology Review, 25:1, January 2005, Pages 97-118
Wood. James M. (2006) "The Controversy Over Exner's Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak" Independent Practitioner.
Lilienfeld, Scott O. (Editor), William T. O'Donohue (Editor) (2007) "Better Measurement Makes Better Clinicians" (Wood here again) The Great Ideas of Clinical Science
Please note that unlike Faustian I provided the actual full reference so you have some idea of what in the sam hill I am sending you to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, read my response (a few paragraphs above) to what you "have shown" about Faustian's links, as well as the information about additional information about rebuttals. As I said, there's lots of rebuttal information out there to Wood et al. if you're open minded enough to actually find it and read it. Wood et al. are in the minority in personality assessment, and they use statistical voodoo and junk science to reach their conclusions. You just haven't gone to the trouble to find the evidence for that. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply claiming it is junk science doesn't wash especially when that so called junk science appeared in a peer reviewed journal The fact you don't understand the link with anthropology shows you are ignorent of this little gem: "Psychiatry is, as we all recognize, at a critical juncture. Anthropology must come to its aid."--Thomas Gladwin National Institute of Mental Health in 1962 American Anthropologist Vol. 64, No. 6 pg 1962. As the old adage say those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, Wood, et al. are a distinctly minority view, as evidenced by the surveys of assessment psychologists on their usage of the instrument. Anyone is free to claim something is "controversial," but that doesn't make it so. Peter Deusberg still insists that HIV has no relationship with AIDS and claims that the HIV "hypothesis" is "very controversial." Others claim that evolution is a "controversial" theory in biology and no more accepted than literal creatioinism. That doesn't make it so. The fact that the earth is roughly spherical is not controversial, despite the claims of Flat Earth Societies. There are few researchers outside of the Wood cohort claiming that the Rorschach is invalid (although as with any psychological instrument, validity depends on the question asked). In an earlier post, I published the URL of the pdf of the Society for Personality Assessment review of the Rorschach literature. That review has many references to studies, including all major meta-analytic studies of the Rorschach validity. Reviewers of the meta-analysis of Rorschach research have all concluded that it possesses validity coefficients on par with other psychological tests (slightly better at predicting behavioral outcomes, less at predicting self descriptions). Read the data.SPAdoc (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SPAdoc. What a great idea for anyone trying to edit article: "Read the data". Ward3001 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A survey doesn't mean squadoo especially if we don't don't know how the questions were worded.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what SPAdoc said, READ the data, Bruce. Read the sources (they have been linked) before your pronouncment of non-squadoo meanings. Ward3001 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SPADoc. Go take a look at the SPA review and read the large number of papers it cites, and give that position its appropriate weight.
As Anthropologists have known since Minor's 1956 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema," American Anthropologist 58 (1956): 503-507 article shoved it in their face there is no such thing as "raw data". The reality is the "data" was what the researcher expected to find and resulted in the whole emic-etic concept and later system-theory to try and address the problem. James Burke would later take system-theory to the general public in his famous Connections and Day the Universe Changed"" series. Then you have the "data" from where, when, and regarding what issue? Even its supporter accept that the Rorschach test has been used in ways for which it is ill suited and even Wood accepts that it is very good in certain areas.
Paul, Annie Murphy (2004) The Cult of Personality lambasted the uses the Rorschach test is put to. Herbert, Wray (2009) "Analyze This: The real problem with the Rorschach test: It doesn't work" Newsweek Web Exclusive Jul 30, 2009] stated "The journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this PSPI report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach."
Wikipedia:Verifiability states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." and despite my own efforts to get a ranking of sources (see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Decision_Memory) they are considered on equal footing. Since the Newsweek article is the latest one on this issue and states the PSPI report "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach" that puts all these other claims of Wood being "refuted" as being highly suspect bordering on WP:OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the issue of cross-cultural use: Yes, there has been sigificant work in recent years regarding the cross-cultural use of the Rorschach. That's a good thing. It's not a question of a black-and-white "it's valid" vs. "it's invalid" position -- this is a very complex test, with many different variables, each of which may have greater or lesser validity with any given client or population. Nor is cross-cultural research even an effort to prove that the Rorschach is invalid. Collecting normative data from different population groups is precisely how the process of developing scientific knowledge works. We would expect there to be some differences. The fact that research indicates that differences exist does not prove that the test is invalid; rather, it provides useful information to those doing assessments on members of different cultural groups.
As we've been saying for quite a while, it's a tremendously difficult undertaking to wade into a vast field of research on a topic where you don't have even the most basic background knowledge (like, say, about the entire concept of "correct" answers). Mirafra (talk)
I disagree. The whole emit and emic issue in anthropology showed that the very idea of "correct" answer is a misnomer. Worse it also showed that the very theory you go into the field with can distort what you record. About a decade later James Burke would use the very some idea in his "Day the Universe Changed" series especially the last episode where he uses all those optical illusions. The problem is if there is too much interpretation involved then a Rorschach test may be no better than a lie detector.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, I am having a very hard time making your rather odd connection between the Rorschach and ... anthropology??? I've asked you to explain it earlier, but so far you haven't. The Rorschach is a psychological test. Please give us details, including references to reliable sources, as to how the decades of research by psychologists on the Rorschach is in any way negated by research by an anthropologist. Clinical psychologists have found the Rorschach to be very useful in mental health settings. If an anthropologist doesn't find the Rorschach useful in the field of anthropology, what does that have to do with clinical psychology and mental health??
Another point Bruce. Please justify your comment that "there is too much interpretation involved [in] a Rorschach test" specifically as it applies to Exner's interpretive system (by far the most widely used system). Do you know anything about Exner's system? Do you know how the hundreds of interpretive variables are derived from the patient's responses on the Rorschach. Exner's system does not rely heavily on subjective interpretation by the examiner. This is pointed out even in an article as brief and as full of errors as the Wikipedia article on the Rorschach. Have you read that? The Rorschach examiner doesn't simply read a few of the patient's responses and suddenly speculate about a diagnosis. There's a very complex, scientifically based, statistically sophisticated method for reaching interpretive conclusions. So, please explain how "there is too much interpretation involved [in] a Rorschach test". Ward3001 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second the comment regarding anthropology. I have to admit as well that the Rorschach is extremely unsuited for...detecting the presence of colon cancer, not to mention HIV infection. Interestingly, however, there has recently (in the last 2 years) been an impressive research effort in terms of collecting international norms. These are now collected in a special edition of Journal of Personality Assessment [1]. These will enable researchers to analyze differences between cultural groups based upon hard data. What these data show, by the way, is that in general, norms do NOT differ between countries, but that there are some intriguing isolated differences that appear to be consistent with anthropological views of particular societies. SPAdoc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yet another article: [21].Faustian (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infligment

Why don't they create new test and put them under their copyright? Stop shitting and turn your brain on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.87.173 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a WP:CIVIL tone. I just addressed this issue about half a screen above here. Mirafra (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it has been addressed many times in the past. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly cool-headed correction

The pronunciation of the test's name is given as [ʁoɐˈʃax], with the stress on the second syllable. This is incorrect. It should be [ˈʁoɐ ʃax] (or [ˈʁoɐ.ʃax]), with the stress on the first syllable, beginning with an uvular [R]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.231.219 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use in court

Rorschach tests get used in court, and are hardly ever challenged. Isn't that reason enough to publish the test? Shouldn't any citizen have the right to understand and rebut the evidence presented against him in court? If the psychologists really wanted to keep this test secret, then they would not have used it in court. Roger (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"These days most reputable psychologists feel the Rorschach is unreliable at best and dagerously misleading at worst." (Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center)--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's hardly a reliable source. The Rorschach is used very frequently in custody cases. The sourse you took the quote form is full of nonsense.Faustian (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the test is reliable or not, there should be public info on any test used in court. Is someone arguing that the courts should use secret tests of unknown reliability? I don't see the argument for censoring the inkblots. Roger (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown reliability??? Could you tell us where you came up with this? The reliability of the Rorschach is well studied and supported. And at the top of this section, you said, "Rorschach tests get used in court, and are hardly ever challenged. Isn't that reason enough to publish the test?" Um, no, the fact the the test is not challenged in court is because it has been shown to be a very useful instrument that helps the court reach conclusions. Then you said, "Shouldn't any citizen have the right to understand and rebut the evidence presented against him in court?" The court uses experts, not defendants, to understand the test results, and any defense attorney who is halfway competent would not ask his/her client to do the rebuttal; that attorney would find an expert. And then you said, "If the psychologists really wanted to keep this test secret, then they would not have used it in court". The issue of test security to prevent invalidating test results has little to do with whether the test is used in court. Courts do not publish copies of the actual test (i.e., the images). They may release copies of psychological evaluation reports that interpret the test findings. I fail to see your point about use in court and keeping the test "secret". Ward3001 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is known and established, and the type of secrecy we are talking about is the same sort as not giving out the questions and answers to the SAT or any other test.Faustian (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Court cases are public record for the most part. --98.238.145.2 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the court doesn't publish copies of the test images. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In court cases, psychologists, even under subpoena, are PROHIBITED from releasing test questions/items/protocols to the court. They release the reports, notes, etc. - but never the test protocols themselves (to the court or attorneys). They only release the protocols to other psychologists (most often on the opposing side), who then review and analyze their opinions (because only a trained psychologist is able to interpret testing data meaningfully and responsibly). I'll repeat again, the tests themselves (this includes many other tests beyond the Rorschach) ARE NOT released to the court or attorneys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the court does not publish the Rorschach test images or protocols. That is why it is so important that WP and others do it. You can argue all you want that the test is reliable, but I should not have to accept someone's opinion against me in court. I should be able to examine the evidence myself. The psychologists gave up all right to secrecy when they started using this dubious stuff in court. Roger (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing dubious about it, as the Rorschach meets the Daubert standard and, as the article states, has been used in 8,000 cases and only been challenged 6 times and overturned once. Do you also propose that wikipedia also release all the answers and test items on medical licensing exams, college entrance exams, all other tests including all psychological tests in case on of them is used in a court case somewhere? I may be wrong, but it sounds like you just don't feel that any psychological tests ought to be used in court (because, any psych test would be spoiled if all the answers and test items were known). Faustian (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the information presented doesn't tell you what the Rorschach test was used with. Also contrary to popular belief lie detectors are allowed in some US courts even at the federal level and those are known to have questionable realizable and last time I checked would seem to have a major fail with regards to the Daubert standard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You give the wrong impression, Bruce. Lie detectors are not admissible as evidence in most U.S. courts. They are frowned on by most judges. They are used by law enforcement and businesses, but they are not admissible as evidence in most courts. The Rorschach, on the other hand, has been admissible in almost all cases when it was used by a competent forensic psychologist. And I have no idea what you mean by your statement "The problem is the information presented doesn't tell you what the Rorschach test was used with"??? Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Rorschach meets the Daubert standard, then that is all the more reason for it to be subject to public scrutiny. If some other test is used against people in court, then yes, it should also be subject to public scrutiny. Roger (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The psychometric characteristics, research on reliability and validity, and the reliationship of the test to behavior are fully open to public scrutiny. Anyone can read any journal article or book that pertains to a test. But that does not mean the test items must be made public. Research on the SAT is open to public scrutiny, but the test items are never released to the general public. Intelligence tests are often used in court. Does that mean that the test items should be released to the public? If your answer is yes, that would mean that a new test would have to be developed every time the public demanded access to the test items. And to do that would require millions of dollars and years of research every time a new test had to be developed, essentially making test development impossible. To demand that test items for every test used in court should be made public would effectively render every one of those tests useless. So that means a determination of (for example) a defendant's fitness to stand trial would be impossible in many cases. It means that someone who might qualify for a disability claim on the basis of mental retardation could not take his case to court. I hope you're getting my point about the ridiculousness of exposing test items in the name of public scrutiny. Public scrutiny does not require violating test security. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So a court can only tell is someone is retarded with some inkblot images, and then it cannot do it anymore if the inkblots are published? I just don't believe that. Roger (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, I'm not sure if you are having difficulty understanding the words in my comment, or if you didn't read my comment, or if you are wildly jumping to conclusions (or maybe you're trying to make a joke). Please give me the diff in which I said "a court can only tell is someone is retarded with some inkblot images". I'll try to restate my point more simply. You argue that tests used by the court should be open to public scrutiny. You conclude that this means that the Rorschach test items (the images) should be available to the public. I made a point that if we make test items available to the public because the court uses them, then every intelligence test (not inkblots) used by the court to determine mental retardation will then be useless. My most basic point is that public scrutiny of tests does not require public exposure of the test items (which damages the tests), whether it's the questions in an intelligence test or the images in the Rorschach. Ward3001 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe some supposedly retarded guy will study the popular intelligence tests on WP, and then some court will be unable to prove that he is retarded because he will know how to ace the tests? Is that the problem? That just seems so farfetched to me. It seems much more likely that the court will use some bogus test that has only gained acceptance because of a lack of public scrutiny. Roger (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, let me try to simplify this even more. If intelligence test items are released to the general public, the test is useless. There are a limited number of intelligence tests that can be accepted in court. If all of them are rendered useless by public release of the test items, there will not BE a test that can diagnose ANYONE mentally retarded. Therefore, no one who is actually mentally retarded will be able to be diagnosed as mentally retarded for purposes of the court. That means that no one could have a legitimate disability claim based on mental retardation presented to the court because no one could be diagnosed. And that's just for the court. There are dozens of other important uses of these tests outside the court that would be made impossible by public release of test items. That, Roger, is not far-fetched. And that's only for intelligence tests. Other tests are used by the court to determine if someone is competent to stand trial. Release of the test items to the general public would render those tests useless. Therefore, the court would never be able to determine if someone was competent to stand trial. And here is the most important part (read carefully): it is not necessary to release test items in order to have public scrutiny of a test, whether the Rorschach, MMPI, intelligence test, or any other psychological test. I don't think I can make that any simpler. Ward3001 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what would happen is some people who were mentally retarted would still fail the test. For people who passed the test, there are two possibilities (1) they're not mentally retarted, or (2) they figured out which test would be administered to them in advance, executed a search to find public info about the test, memorized the answers, and used them to demonstrate non-retardation. An intelligent person who was not mentally retarted could still be diagnosed as retarded by a test, by intentionally falsifying answers, they don't need to know the test items in advance to do that. Tests such as Lie detector tests or the Roschach test should not be all that easy to cheat; lie detector tests rely on physiological response, and Roschach test relies on the examinee's interpretations of what they see: unless someone has told them what to see in advance, their interpretations during the test should still be their own. They can lie about what they see, or blurt out canned answers, but they could do that without seeing the images in advance, and it will be up to the examiner to determine if that's what is happening.. --Mysidia (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Mysidia. Let me try again. If there is no usable test (as would be the case if the test items were released to the public) there would be no test to fail. If the tests used by the court are rendered useless, there is no "passing" or "failing" the test because there is no test to administer; there is no diagnosis. Thus, no one can make a disability claim in court on the basis of mental retardation. Similarly, if all tests used by the court to determine fitness for trial were made invalid by public exposure of the test items, the court has no way to determine if someone is fit to stand trial. As for another of your comments "Roschach test relies on the examinee's interpretations of what they see", are you saying that a person will give an identical response to a Rorschach image if he is seeing it for the first time compared to if he has studied the image, thought about what it might be, talked to his friends about what it might be, read suggested answers on websites? Are you saying the same responses and the same results will occur under both of those conditions? Ward3001 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your scenario still seems farfetched to me. Are there any examples of courts that were unable to diagnose someone because some test had been revealed? I just don't believe that would ever happen. But if I am wrong, there should be some examples to prove I am wrong. Where has there ever been any harm from disclosing a test like this? And even if there was some harm, it is surely more than compensated by having fairer and more open court processes. Roger (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "scenario", it's a practical and legal fact. If it is so farfetched, please tell me how a court would determine whether a person is mentally retarded if there is no test to determine mental retardation. Legal determination of mental retardation requires test scores. If the items of all tests used to determine mental retardation are released to the public (thus making all of them useless), how would you propose that a court should determine that someone is mentally retarded? Give me the specific procedures for determining mental retardation without test scores, and then I might be able to make this a little clearer for you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A test score can only ever affirm retardation, not disprove the possibility, other than to say it's unlikely (statistically). If a person tested by the court takes the test and fails to demonstrate the intelligence being tested for, they will be scored as mentally retarted whether they had been exposed to test items before or not does not invalidate that finding: even if the candidate had access to the test items, them failing the test, is still an indisputable failure to demonstrate the intelligence being tested for, and therefore, they suffer the ratardation. The situation in that is unclear only if they take the test and do demonstrate the intelligence being tested for; only test results that say the examinee has the intelligence being tested for are really in question. This is why knowledge of the items wouldn't totally invalidate the test; it would only invalidate one possible finding based on test results (a finding of 'normal' or not afflicted by retardation). Tests are directional in nature; if someone fails to perform normally on a test, the test provides useful information. If someone performs normally on a test, it could actually be a retardation, or an ailment (in the case of Rorschach) not detectable by the test. I don't think use of psychological tests in court cases is a valid reason to publish test details, but the images of Rorschach don't compromise the details of the test either: the public domain images are used by the test, but are not the test. --Mysidia (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a fact. The SAT makers used to claim that the SAT had to be super-secret. Now SAT tests are published, and the public has a better understanding of the tests. I think these psych tests are just kept secret to protect them from criticism. It can't be that hard to test for mental retardation. What do you think, that some retarded guy is going to memorize all the tests? If he can do that, he is probably not retarded. Roger (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, I'm beginning to think that you either have problems understanding English (no offense intended, that's just my impression in case your first language is not English and that's why we're having so much trouble communicating), or that you are purposefully being obtuse here as a joke. But in the event that neither of those is true, please tell me how anyone can memorize the test items IF THERE IS NO TEST, because if the test items are released to the public, the test will never be used again and there will be no test to memorize. And by the way, the SAT test questions for tests that have not yet been administered are never released to the public. Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the SAT revises their tests or utilizes large question sets to allay obvious attempts at memorizing questions for better college placement scores. However, the article doesn't provide information that could be used to cheat Roschach; it is not as if you can study ink blots longer and memorize "right answers". The article doesn't actually say in detail what questions the test examiner will ask, how the images are used, what all the things the examinee will be asked to do. The test must still work, even if the examinee has been tested before (meaning they've already seen the images in the past, when they were being tested). The examiner will very likely ask the examinee if they've seen the image before, and if necessary, utilize a different test. Rorschach is definitely not the only projective test that can be utilized. --Mysidia (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mysidia, the norms (data from which all interpretations are based) for the Rorschach are from people who are seeing the images for the first time and is based on their first impression in seeing the images. So I have two specific questions I would like for you to answer: (1) Are you claiming that a patient will give an identical response on seeing the inkblot the first time, compared to someone who has studied the blots for some time, perhaps thinking about possible answers, perhaps talking to his friends about what they see in the blots, and perhaps reading the common responses that are in the Wikipedia article? (2) You said the examiner can "utilize a different test". There are some things the Rorschach can do that no other test can do, or not do as well. For example, no other test has a suicide constellation that has been shown to empirically identify patients who are suicidal (that's just one example). What other test will the psychologist "utilize" to get that information? Will the psychologist instantly create a new inkblot test (the current one is based on 90 years of research that would no longer apply to a new test)? Please give us specific answers to those two questions. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems very improbable to me, but there is no reason for me to take your word for it anyway. Are there some published studies which show that the Rorschach only diagnoses suicidal thoughts if the inkblots are being seen for the first time? That other images and tests do not work as well? That suicidal patients are likely to study Wikipedia in order to learn how to beat a psych test? That patients are somehow worse off even if they do try to beat the test? It seems to me that publishing inkblots would be beneficial to almost everyone, but I will look at evidence to the contrary if there is any. Roger (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is improbable? Ward3001 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would financially benefit psychologists if they published the images. Put them on windows, hang a shingle, and put one on a business card. It's good commercial advertising, and if it helped advance the cause better diagnoses and early treatment of mental illness, then why not? But the fact is that two national societies, the British and the American, forbids this for its members. See [22] and [23]. Plus, the APA has published a statement on the disclosure of test data (of which the Rorshach is one) that states that disclosure would harm the test and the public. I can see no conspiracy behind this, and I doubt very much whether a conspiracy could be successful. In all the criticism of the test, this position statement is not contradicted by any other source. I think we can take it as reliable information. The question then becomes what do we do with this information? We should consider all the facts. Then, using dynamic tension we make a judgment. We should consider all the facts and all the arguments, pro and con, and then make a determination. See arguments at Talk:Rorschach_test/images Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the APA forbids inkblot disclosure by members, but the inkblots are being disclosed by non-members, so there is no ethical violation. The APA statement does not say that disclosure is necessarily harmful. It says, "Disclosure of secure testing materials ... may decrease the test's validity." That suggests that some disclosures may be beneficial, and some may be harmful. Roger (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that the APA thinks disclosure of test materials may be beneficial??? I wonder if you could please give us the details of your logic, because if you could convince the psychologists here that the APA thinks exposure of test materials is beneficial, then the psychologists can go ahead and pack our bags, leave this talk page completely, and go get re-educated in the APA's complete reversal of its longstanding policies and opinions. So please, how did you conclude that the APA might think release of test materials could be beneficial. Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The APA does not set Wikipedia editorial policy. Regarding choice to publish the images, it doesn't matter all that much whether the APA is opposed to it or deems it harmful/beneficial or not. I would consider the APA to be an interested party, who would likely oppose publication for much the same reason as the publisher of the test would oppose publication of the now free images. The discussion is really getting convoluted and repetitive, and it would appear consensus has already formed to publish images... --Mysidia (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mysidia, you're making the discussion even more convoluted. I never said that APA sets Wikipedia policy. I asked Roger where he came up with the idea that APA considers exposure of test items possibly beneficial. Ward3001 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The APA was cited to support the idea that disclosure is harmful. But the APA does not say that. The APA position seems to be that some disclosures can be beneficial while others can be harmful. It does not take a stand on the Rorschach images. Roger (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. The APA position is not that some disclosures can be beneficial. That's either deliberately misreading the APA code of ethics or just being a bit thick. The ethics code says that we have to protect test security because some disclosures might be mostly neutral, some might be harmful to the usefulness of the instrument, and that some have not been fully researched. In many ways, it's hard to do the research to establish this kind of stuff clearly -- we can't really do research on how a culture changes without actually doing the thing we're worried isn't a good idea to do -- so we go under the general principle that we always want to give a test in the way it was normed, on subjects who are not familiar with the test content. Yes, the research is, in fact, being done. But it takes enormous amounts of time, money, and volunteers to do so. The nature of what we do and how we develop new knowledge prevents us from being as agile as a software person just changing security protocols.
Also, the notion that the APA code of ethics doesn't necessarily apply to the Rorschach is a nonsensical argument that has been shot down numerous times already. The APA code of ethics refers to test security for all tests used for psychological evaluation. The Rorschach is a member of that class of objects. The total number of items in that class numbers somewhere in the hundreds or thousands (maybe more -- I suppose someone could check the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook for a better numerical estimate). The APA code of ethics talks about general concepts, rather than enumerating all possible instantiations. For a different example, it says that it's unethical to exploit a client for financial gain. It doesn't list all the possible ways that might happen: this is a way to protect the public, by preventing an unethical person from saying, "Well, you didn't specifically prohibit what I did, so it must be okay." Mirafra (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the APA does not realize that disclosures can be beneficial, then that is their ignorance. I am glad to hear that research is being done on whether disclosures such as inkblot disclosures are harmful. I doubt that there is any harm, but if any harm is ever proven, then you can suggest that WP remove the images. Roger (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) There seems to be some implication that the APA holds some authority over this test. That is not the case. It is in the public domain and thus the public has every right to see them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that the APA has any authority over any test. There is enough confusion on this page without that type of unfounded claim. Roger made a bizarre claim that the APA might see disclosure of test items beneficial, and I asked him to tell us how he came to this conclusion. Ward3001 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just quoting an APA web page. I gave a link to my source. I don't know what the APA thinks. I assume that it says whatever will maximize the income of its members. That probably means keeping the inkblots secret. But the APA never says that there is any harm to disclosing the inkblots. And there are some obvious benefits to disclosure, whether the APA admits to them or not. Roger (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, again I'm struggling to believe that you fully understand English (just in case it's not your first language). But once again, I'll accept the fact that you may have misread something. Nowhere on the page that you link, nor on any other APA webpage, does it say that the APA might consider release of test items beneficial. That was your own bizarrely contorted conclusion. Ward3001 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to insult me, or to address what I actually said? Roger (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't insult you. I seriously wonder why you seem to misinterpret most of what you read. I have communicated with people on Wikipedia who have limited English skills (and had good discussions with them), and your comments have reminded me very much of them. You misinterpreted almost every response I have given to you above, having tremendous deifficulty understanding why if a test does not exist, it cannot be used by a court, even though I said that in about three different ways in very plain English. Even another editor corrected you. And I DID address what you said a few lines above (but of course you didn't get it). So let me put it a different way. Give me the direct quote from any APA webpage in which someone could conclude that APA might think release of test items could be beneficial. If you can do that, then maybe I can help you understand my point. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are very insulting, and you do not address what I said. I suggest that you reread what I said, if you want to understand it. If you want APA website quotes to support whatever point you want to make, then I suggest that you get them yourself. Roger (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were not insulting; you only chose to take them that way. And let me quote you directly: "The APA statement does not say that disclosure is necessarily harmful. It says, 'Disclosure of secure testing materials ... may decrease the test's validity.' That suggests that some disclosures may be beneficial". Do you deny that you wrote that several paragraphs above? If not, I'm asking you to either back up what you said, or admit that it's wrong. Give me a direct quote from any APA webpage in which someone could conclude that APA might think release of test items could be beneficial. If you can't do that, or if you don't acknowledge your error, I'll consider your above comments insulting. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I posted that APA quote, except that you omitted my link to the APA web page containing the quote. I give you the link again: [24] Read it yourself, if you like. Now that you finally found the quote that I posted, I hope that you will stop insulting me. If you want to post your own quotes from the APA, go ahead, but I am tired of answering your questions over and over again. All you ever had to do was to find the quote on the web page with the link that I provided. Roger (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you linked to a webpage; you did not post a quote from APA. There's a difference between a link and a quote. I am asking you to quote the specific words on the webpage from which someone could conclude that APA might think release of test items could be beneficial. I'm asking you to back up this claim with the specific words from which you came to this conclusion. The reason I ask is because those words are not there. That was your conclusion; it was not suggested on the APA webpage. If you disagree, give the rest of us the exact words that would suggest that APA thinks release of test items could be beneficial. Otherwise, it is your false conclusion about something that APA has never said. Ward3001 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did quote the APA. If you have a disagreement, then go ahead and post your disagreement. Roger (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Roger did quote the APA correctly when he said that disclusure of test date "may decrease the test's validity." However, he went on to conclude that the APA left open the possibility that disclosure may also increase the test's validity or benefit. He has produced no reliable source to back up this inventive interpretation, which stands in stark contrast with the sentences before and after the one he quoted. So I think his interpretation is best forgotten. Really, I think he was having fun with us, weren't you, Roger? More to the point of this thread, Roger wants to know if the public is entitled to know everything about the evidence against the accused. That's a fair question, I think. We've heard some say that it's the expert testimony by the psychologist that is entered into evidence, not the images themselves. This makes sense to me, since it is the subject's responses to the images that are at issue, not the images themselves. And since only an expert is qualified to judge the subject's response, then the images are several steps removed from the actual evidence entered into court. I think the accused has a right to see and hear the evidence against him. And in this case, the evidence does not include the Rorschach images. But Roger's question is still valid: What does the public have a right to know? I think a lot. I think we can provide a lot of information, without actually showing the images. Information that can help either side of a court case. But to go so far as to vandalize a test (and in the case of SPARC, sabotage the test) crosses a line. That's not a valid purpose. Destroying knowledge defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia and harms the subject of our articles. It's disrespectful to the subject. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a point DD. I myself had wondered if Roger was playing a game with us by pretending that he had done something he had not done. If so, no harm done, but let's move on. Ward3001 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to my comment?

This edit seems to have disappeared in the archiving. --NE2 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, I've gone ahead and added it to /images in the same place as it was on here. (Sorry if you had a reason to omit that, Xeno. I didn't see any though.) 24.76.174.152 (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. No, it wasn't an intentional omission - I will take a look later to see where it got lost and see if anything else was lost with it. –xenotalk 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was being moved in this edit, but for some reason it didn't make it in this edit. Sorry 'bout that, thanks for fixing it 24.x.x.x. –xenotalk 11:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world supports the addition of these images (reason number 7 I think)

Not only does the majority of editors on Wikipedia support the addition of these images but so does the majority of the world ( look at the comments of the NYTs article). People do not beleive science should take place behind locked door but they beleive it should be an open process.

I spoke to both the head of psychiatry and the department of psycology at my hospital yesterday. No one here uses the Rorschach test even though some have been trained in it. My college the psychiatrist has congratualed use on bringing this discussion out into the open and in her words "exposing this test". --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said before, James, your neck of the woods is not in the mainstream. I know a number of Canadian psychologists who regularly use the Rorschach and who regularly consult with physicians about test findings as they relate to diagnosis. And I suspect the congratulations given to you relates more to your publicity seeking and 15 minutes of fame rather than any general opinions of Canadian psychiatrists. Ward3001 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page did receive over half a million hits yesterday. Looks like people consider the topic interesting. Do you have any data to back up your assertion of test usage in Canada? "A number of" does not sound like very many. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much data as you do for your claims. Do you have any data to back up your conclusions that "the majority of the world" has any particular opinion based on a few comments in the NYT and a congrats to you for your 15 minutes of fame by one psychiatrist? Ward3001 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If there is a notable controversy over Wikipedia, just document it already like we always do. There isn't any real debate on whether the images should be removed, just as on Talk:Muhammad/images. If it's (a) notable and (b) legal, Wikipedia will carry it, there is simply no point in arguing about this. If Wikipedia content "has stirred controversy" or whatever, just make a sourced statement to the effect and be done. --dab (��) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone broke the shaman's magic wand. Though it doesn't really seem to matter at all. The results just depend on how the shaman hits the patient on the head with that wand. --84.226.18.142 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand the logic here. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of kids applying to college would love it if WP would publish the questions for the SAT. Public demand does not create scientific or encyclopedic necessity. Mirafra (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wikipedia's basic principles is consensus, though. --LjL (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like most other languages of wiki articles include all 10 inkblots. A few just have a single blot and one uses a fake blot. Looks like the international muultilingual consensus is for inclusion of all ten images.--Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I studied the test! Why did I fail?

I've read through a tonne of comments here after seeing a report about the page on Newsworld in Canada. There seems to be a lot of criticism of the author because he's an ER doctor and works in a smaller city. This is ridiculous. It only goes to show the ignorance of the posters.

A doctor who works in a small city is trained in exactly the same manner as one who works in a large urban center. Also, an ER doctor is often the first person in the medical system who deals with the mentally ill so their experience in the matter shouldn't be entirely discarded. Finally, on the matter of their worthiness to post an article on the test, an ER doctor will spend close to a decade in school studying medicine. They have the academic background to comment on a medical test.

Now on to us laypersons. I love being able to read about this and any other psychological test that are used to diagnose mental illness. To have psychologists hide them behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz, makes me suspicious of the very validity of such testing. Surely they can't believe that a mentally disturbed person would study these tests to fool the tester into believing something that isn't real? If one test points to one result surely the tester would administer other tests to confirm or deny it. Unless, of course, the tester already has made a diagnosis and is just waiting for one test to confirm their opinion.

Leave the images and the article on the site. Let knowledge triumph over superstition and fear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanQboy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TanQboy, thanks for your comments. I think your comments are very well-intentioned, but I think you have greatly misunderstood what you read. The criticisms here about the ER doctor have nothing to do with the size of the city in which he practices. The fundamental criticisms are that an ER doctor, including this one, is not trained in the Rorschach. Being a "doctor" does not make someone an expert on everything related to healthcare. With the exception of psychiatrists (and the doctor you refer to is not a psychiatrist), most physicians have almost no training in psychological testing, and even less training in the Rorschach. It's quite possible for a typical physician to have read only a paragraph or two in a textbook about the Rorschach (if that much), and to never have had any direct experience with the Rorschach whatsoever. So your comment "They have the academic background to comment on a medical test", when applied to the Rorschach, is simply untrue. If your physician had no more experience with a medical procedure he was planning to use with you, would you feel comfortable about it? I certainly wouldn't. So the physician in question here has very little expertise on the Rorschach. He may have read a few journal articles on the topic out of the hundreds that need to be read for any expertise. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this physician has never been trained in administration or interpretation of the Rorschach. On the other hand, there are a few psychologists here who have read almost every major resource on the Rorschach, have studied the test for decades, and have directly administered and interpreted hundreds of Rorschachs. I hope this clarifies things for you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this will be my last comment for a while. I echo what Ward3001 says. Being an expert in one field does not make one an expert in another--no matter how many years s/he spends in school. I consider myself an expert on the Rorschach; I have used it for over 35 years, I have conducted research on it, have published dozens of papers on it, etc. None of that gives me the slightest clue how to interpret an MRI scan of lumbar soft tissue. If a physician came up with a diagnosis of my back pain that I disagreed with, I would hardly be able to "rebut" it by looking at the MRI. As for "hiding" tests from the public, this is not the thrust of the argument here. Most tests work best if the individual does not have prior knowledge of the content. The college board goes to great lengths to safeguard the security of the SAT and its companion tests. If a candidate had access to the test and memorized the correct answers, it would not give an accurate reflection of that person's aptitude (except, perhaps, his or her aptitude for sociopathy). Similarly, if someone "boned up" on the Rorschach and gave pre-programmed responses, the resulting assessment would not reflect his or her true psychological functioning. Interestingly, some of the information on the Wikipedia page is, in fact, inaccurate; someone who relied upon it to create a false protocol wouldn't even be doing what s/he thought they were. The tenor of some of these comments seems to imply that psychologists are somehow trying to "trick" people by "hiding" our tests. This is not the case; we are merely trying to ensure that when we conduct assessments--especially high stakes assessments (e.g., conflictual custody battles, criminal cases, law enforcement screening) our assessments are as accurate as possible. To do otherwise does a disservice to both the person being evaluated and the general public.

Having said this, however, I don't want the impression left that the display of the blots here will invalidate the test. At worst, it may make it easier for some individuals to invalidate their results; the instrument will survive.SPAdoc (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TanQboy, for allowing me the opportunity to discuss the subject of the arguments advanced by DocJames. Speaking as one of the non-experts who disagrees with DocJames, my argument with him has less to do with his job or location, but rather with his attitude that it's okay to cheat on a test. His rationalization revolves around the idea that an ER doctor and optometrists have to deal with patients who have access to health information, so why should psychologists be any different? I find this argument to be nonconstructive. Up to now, I have hesitated to comment on it because so few other of my opponents have advanced the same position and I didn't want to give dignity to an argument that can be characterized by "Ah shucks. You think you got problems: When I was a boy, we had to walk 3 miles to school in snow."
Instead, I have been focusing most of my time at those who insert their own opinion in place of position statements by major health organizations, such as the following. [25] [26] [27] Doc James is among those who does not respect this source of information. See WP:MEDRS for policy on respect for secondary sources. We are not supposed to advance our own opinions in place of secondary sources. It's natural to form an opinion about Rorschach images. Indeed, that is their function. But we should trust our sources more than our own opinions, because that's what Wikipedians do.
If you'd like to read more about the various arguments both pro and con, you may find them at the image discussion page by clicking either the arguments con button or the arguments pro button. I think you'll find that the arguments go a lot deeper than how you have characterized things. And again, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to comment on the arguments advanced by DocJames. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not "what Wikipedians do". Sorry to interject, but by now I'm seeing this (IMO mistaken) attitude far too many times. Wikipedia wants secodary sources for its articles. Most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are about articles. Statements in articles must be reliably sourced. That's entirely different from what's "ethically" appropriate to have in guidelines and to practice! Don't give people weird ideas about Wikipedia. --LjL (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't use reliable sources for our information, who do we use? The community? You and me? I think that's just wrong. You can try and make a distinction between information we use solely in our discussion pages and how it trickles up to our articles, but I worry about going down that road. You're saying that policy only applies to what we do on our articles and not to how we discuss them. But I think there are plenty of policies for how we are supposed to act in our discussions. Why some and not others? I also think the better we organize our talk pages, the better will be our articles, because one derives much from the other. Think about it... If we don't apply some pretty basic rules to our discussions, like fact checking and attribution, then I shudder to think what will happen as the results trickle up to our articles. At the very least, it will result in articles that change drastically over time, depending on who's doing the talking, which is what is happening here at the Rorschach test.
By relying on our own opinions, I worry that we've compromised some basic principles to the operation of an encyclopedia. I think we need to take a step back and really consider what it is that we are trying to do. I think we should stick to writing an encyclopedia with general articles (see WP:MEDICAL) that inform us about real-world context, (i.e. information that is relevant but not exhaustive) and that does not destroy knowledge or utility. I want this knowledge to be available to future generations. Because, really, what is knowledge without utility? See similar discussion at SUBPAGE Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS states, "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". And what does that footnote say? "Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement". Note that policies and guidelines are explicitly listed as an example of what WP:RS does not apply to. You can feel free to have the opinion that it should apply, but that does not change the fact that it doesn't. A reliable source telling Wikipedia that something is bad and they shouldn't do it is not at the moment basis for actually not doing it.
Furthermore, please stop claiming that it is 'destroying' information to include details of the test. It is not. It may arguably be making the information less useful, but it doesn't 'destroy' it in any reasonable sense of the word. You might as well claim that evidence that displayed limitations of classical mechanics and led to the development of more modern theories was 'destroying knowledge' and ought to have been suppressed. Or that the evolution of languages is 'destroying knowledge' because older people don't know what those damn kids are saying these days, and few people can understand Old English anymore. Some information is only valid given certain assumptions, and when these assumptions cease being correct, so does the information. This can hardly be described as 'destruction'. 24.76.174.152 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion about what talk pages and policies/guidelines (I was really talking mostly about the latter, by the way) should be based upon, but it is unreasonable to think that your opinion would suddenly change other people's minds about how it all works. Talk pages are clearly separate from articles, and there are reasons that I and, I suspect, most other Wikipedians find valid for that. We don't make policy based on what reliable sources think should be policy, we make policy based on consensus. If you want to change the way Wikipedia works so drastically, go ahead and try, but that is not something I am currently willing to contemplate. At the very least, though, don't make it seem like your opinion is the way it currently works, because it is not. --LjL (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wood has published in peer review journals and then you have Hallowell, A. Irving (1945) "The Rorschach Technique in the Study of Personality and Culture" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1945), pp. 195-210; Adcock, Cyril J. and James E. Ritchie (1958) "Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 60, No. 5 (Oct., ), pp. 881-892, Mensh, Ivan N. and Jules Henry (1953) "Direct Observation and Psychological Tests in Anthropological Field Work" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 461-480; Boyer, L. Bryce; Ruth M. Boyer, Charles W. Dithrich, Hillie Harned, Arthur E. Hippler, John S. Stone and Andrea Walt (1989) "The Relation between Psychological States and Acculturation among the Tanaina and Upper Tanana Indians of Alaska: An Ethnographic and Rorschach Study" Ethos, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 450-479; Edgerton, Robert B. and Kenneth Polk (1959) "Statistical Problems in the Intercultural Use of Rorschach" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 1092-1093 showing how well (or how poorly) the Rorschach test works.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously arguing against the Rorschach based on a bunch of articles in Anthropological journals from 60 years ago? As for Wood, that's already been addressed. Part of one small group of critics, a small miority in the field. His critical articles are outnumbered by perhaps 20:1 by other peer reviewed articles that use the test for various purposes.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faustian, with all due respect you simply doesn't get is that the Roschach test pictures themselves are over 80 years old. Also last time I checked 2009-1958 is more around 50 years ago not 60. Nevermind challenging Hallowell "a pioneer in cross-cultural Rorschach analysis" (Regna, Darnell; Frederic Wright Gleach (2002) Celebrating a century of the American Anthropological Association: 1949 American Anthropological Association) just shows the importance of who I sited. Furthermore, Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes 64:1 2001 had several commentary articles like "Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist", "Why Psychiatry and Cultural Anthropology Still Need Each Other", and "Edward Sapir's Thought Experiment in the Interdisciplines of Cultural Anthropology and Psychiatry" all show that some Psychiatry professionals consider either that Psychiatry and Cultural Anthropology are related or need each other as recent as just seven years ago.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The blots are over 80 years old, but the current research on their clinical use is current. Mirafra (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge is different than information. Knowledge is the ability to use information. And according to a reliable source, we are destroying knowledge. (quote: "the loss of effective assessment tools." [28]) See discussion at at SUBPAGE Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except the initial reference material does NOT say what you claimed it says:
"Psychologists who use tests are required to respect the confidentiality of test materials and to avoid release of test materials into the public domain" "Statement on the Conduct of Psychologists providing Expert Psychometric Evidence to Courts and Lawyers" British Psychological Society. Since Rorschach test images went public domain in the US (anything first published before 1923 or BY the US government is public domain in the US (even if it is not elsewhere and yes the reverse is true as well) and in Rorschach's native Switzerland in 1992. So epic fail of the "avoid release of test materials into the public domain" requirement of this document.
The Ethical Principles Of Psychologists And Code Of Conduct (June 1, 2003) states "Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code." The Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data which also states "Psychologists are required by the Ethics Code to maintain the integrity and security of tests and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations (APA, 1992; Standard 2.10 "Maintaining Test Security")." Again both US and Switzerland law states the Rorschach test blots images are public domain so the "consistent with law" clause applies.
The Exner Scoring System however is copyrighted and fully protected under all these documents. But this article doesn't provide any details outside the most basic information on the Exner Scoring System that is not already available to the public. In fact given that Exner's work on how to actually do the test can easily be gotten through Amazon makes the whole issue Mount Everest out of mole hill. never mind the Newsweek article puts Wood's position on a very high bar by Wikipedia standards.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, your lack of knowledge is showing I'm afraid. According to Dr. Exner (when he was alive), Exner's Comprehensive System is not copyrighted. His books are copyrighted, but not his system. That's why there is software available that does the calculations for the system that was not created nor given the rights by Dr. Exner, but it does not violate copyright. And that's straight from John Exner. And another point: if Newsweek puts any position on a higher bar than scientific publications by experts, and if that's the bar we use, then Wikipedia has very little credibility in its science articles. Ward3001 (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot systems per say cannot be copyrighted but they could have been patented which would have given Exner more control over how they were used. On the Newsweek issue you will see by the table I put up over at [Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Decision_Memory] I tried to present the idea of ranking sources with Peer reviewed journal (in relevant field) at the top and unfortunately that idea went over like a lead balloon. Then I tried Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Making_the_WP:RS_guildlines_an_actual_guide and that went exactly nowhere as well. So we are stuck with WP:RS that as it stands now IMHO boarders on the useless as a guide on how to actually apply the three polices of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV to sources.
Newsweek article meets the requirement of WP:PRIMARY: "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." Wood, James M. (2006) "The Controversy Over Exner's Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak" Independent Practitioner creates even more headaches. That a 1986 article in Psychosomatic Medicine about Rorschach testing predicting cancer exists doesn't exactly help the pro side.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there's a lot you forgot (or were never aware of). You never answered my question that I asked in another section: What is your evidence that a popular press magazine (such as Newsweek) has more credibility than peer-reviewed journals that have published decades of scientific research that contradicts Wood et al.? Publications from such peer reviewed scientific journals have been presented that confirm that Wood et al. are in a small minority in their criticisms among those who have researched the Rorschach. Being published in Newsweek does not give Wood et al. more credibility than the much larger majority of researchers published in peer-reviewed journals who have overwhelminingly rejected most of Wood et al.'s criticisms. You have a rather strange way of assigning credibility to sources. In your view, popular magazines are more credibile than scientific journals, and archeologists' opinions are more credible than psychologists' opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "evidence" regarding Newsweek is straight out of the way WP:RS is written and what WP:PRIMARY says on the matter. In fact if you dig using google you find out that the key point is a near verbatim quote of Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach."
So we find out that the statement is not Newsweek's but rather that of a person who is part of an organization that deals with Psychological Science, who printed her article through said organization in its news section, and worse for Ward3001 publishes the very journal (Psychological Science in the Public Interest) the Wood piece appeared in. Her article has already been picked up by Medical News Today, Science Daily, EurekAlert! (run by the AAAS}, lab spaces, physorg.com , and several blogs (which don't count as far as [WP:RS] goes. SO this is not just a one shot wonder and the quality of the statement is way better than Ward3001 made it to be.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danglingdiagnosis if we add encylopedic material or not does not depend on the statements of professional organizations. What we add to the article pages needs a RS not our arguements on the talk pages. Wikipedia's goal is to catalogue the bredth and depth of human knowledge and provide it free to the world at large. This goal does not get overridden by an organizations false claimed ownership of material that is in the public domain. Also these images were already on Wikimedia commons. I only tagged them to this page. Even though it seems many wish to vilify my role in this process, the widespread dissemination of these images was inevitable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

multiple similar examples exist in medical field

As a practicing physician (not a psychologist, i admit) with practice experience of both developed and developing countries, I think that these 10 images should be in the article. People who want to fool the test can theoretically do the google search and find a way. Removing it from the article will only make the article less useful for the common people. The predictions of harm from psychologists are not true. The medical field is littered with such stuff e.g. Snellen chart, Ishihara color test and various motor and especially sensory function neurological tests/assessments which completely depend upon the subject's responses. if we follow psychologists argument, then a significant proportion of medical knowledge will become classified. Access to these plates should not be monopolized. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except the norms (data from which all interpretations are based) for the Rorschach are from people who are seeing the images for the first time and is based on their first impression in seeing the images. Are you claiming that a patient will give an identical response on seeing the inkblot the first time, compared to someone who has studied the blots for some time, perhaps thinking about possible answers, perhaps talking to his friends about what they see in the blots, and perhaps reading the common responses that are in the Wikipedia article? Ward3001 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again as I said earlier, (Almost)No genuine subject/patient reads wikipedia articles about Snellen chart, Ishihara color test and neurological tests/assessments before visiting their physician. Some scammers/malingering patients may do that, but deletion of these things from the wikipedia does not help as in all likelihood they will not stop and find what they seek from thousands of other websites. I don't see a reason why these Rorschach plates should be an exception. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, even if you're right that almost no patient reads Wikipedia regarding the Snellen chart (and I'm not sure that you are right about that), I don't think you can safely generalize that to the article on the Rorschach. Most people find the Rorschach more interesting than the Snellen chart, so that alone would motivate many to read it. And people who know they will be taking a psychogical test often feel apprehensive about it since they know nothing about it; in that case, a natural thing for someone to do is read about it (and Wikipedia is a common place to do that). But more importantly, there are extremely important situations in which someone is given the Rorschach who may be motivated to research it for other reasons. The Rorschach is commonly used to provide evidence to the court about the mental status of a defendant, or a litigant in a high-stakes lawsuit. That person has a much higher motivation to find out as much detail about the test as possible. Wikipedia would be a likely starting place for that person. Ward3001 (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you said wikipedia might be a likely starting place for that person, but as you said if this person has a much higher motivation to find out as much detail about the test as possible, then in all likelihood the deletion of these plates from wikipedia will not make a difference except for a 30 seconds delay as wikipedia might be the starting point but it is not going to be his/her stopping point especially if he did not find what he/she seeks in the wikipedia article. That person will spend the next 30 seconds on his favorite search engine and find what he seeks. 123.50.162.208 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That argument (i.e., the information can be found elsewhere, so it might as well be here) has been put forth here numerous times. The quality of the argument depends largely on the goals and objectives of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia should allow any and all information as long as it's available elsewhere, then you are right. If, on the other hand, Wikipedia (like most other mainline encyclopedias, such as Britannica) has some editorial control based on the opinions of experts in the field and based on a sense of balancing the provision of knowledge with responsibility to society, the argument is seriously brought into question. In recent months, the former position has been the majority position, and the minority (psychologists and those who respect psychologists' opinions) has been ignored. For a lot of reasons, this has weakened the article beyond the issue of whether the images should be displayed. Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is Not my argument. I think that these plates are essential for the article and also I think that this censorship attempt is pointless, useless and ineffective. 123.50.162.4 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help me understand why your argument isn't that the information is found elsewhere, so it should be here, especially since you said, "People who want to fool the test can theoretically do the google search and find a way". Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My dear friend, My first argument is:"These plates are an essential for the article and therefore should remain in the article".My second argument is:"This attempt of wikipedia censorship is pointless, useless and ineffective as you cannot erase these plates from internet." My argument isn't that the information is found elsewhere, so it should be here. This is not a personal attack, but I seriously believe that your views might be colored as looks like you are psychologist with some publications. And thus you probably know that you have some conflict of interest issues here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.50.162.4 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I could have sworn that the statement "you cannot erase these plates from internet" means that they are found elsewhere on the internet. And this also is not a personal attack, but I believe your opinions and comments are colored by the fact that most physicians know virtually nothing about the Rorschach. I'm not saying they should understand it; I spend a large part of my working life consulting with physicians, and they seek my opinions because they are not experts on psychological testing, just as I am not an expert on a lot of medical tests and procedures. Additionally, if I understand your point about my "conflict of interest", first of all, I use the test clinically with patients almost every day; I don't just study it in an ivory tower and write papers about it. Secondly, your statement about "conflict of interest" suggests that anyone who has studied the Rorschach in depth and published on the topic should not be a contributor to the article because of "conflict of interest". Let's turn the tables a bit. Would you suggest that physicians should not edit articles in their areas of expertise (perhaps they have published; some physicians who practice also do research)? Are you suggesting that those articles should be written entirely by non-physicians? Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we're not just objecting to the publication of the images, but also to the publication of detailed information about test interpretation (however nonsensical and incomprehensible it currently is -- just because one editor has not managed to do a good job doesn't mean that we shouldn't object to the entire enterprise on principle). Mirafra (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Whenever I publish article in my area of expertise, I have to declare my conflict of interests. And no journal accepts article from any author if their are serious conflicts of interests. For example Most journals refuse articles about smoking from doctors employed by tobacco companies. I am not saying that Rorschach test is harmful(as opposed to smoking). I am just saying that you might have a bias here. You might be subconsciously trying to remove every conceivable threat to your academic, professional or financial health.123.50.162.4 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that cardiologists who perform procedures related to cardiology shouldn't contribute to articles about those procedures because it's a conflict of interest? A scientist who specializes in global warming shouldn't contribute ot an article about global warming because it's a conflict of interest? If articles are written only by people with no ties to the subject you are basically excluding experts. Which, in the case of a complex topic which nonexperts can barely understand, is obviously a recipe for disaster with respect to the goals of an encyclopedia.Faustian (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For anon 123.50.162.4: I didn't ask you about publications. I asked whether you think that experts on the Rorschach should not edit the article (or make comments on this talk page) or whether physicians should not edit Wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise. As to your comment that I "might have a bias here", what is your point? That I should not provide information based on 30 years of studying and using the test and reading every major resource on the Rorschach? If what you feel might be a "bias" renders my comments of no value, then almost every article on a scientific subject in almost every encyclopedia is full of information that should have no value because it was added by experts. Is that your point? And I'll also ask, do you think lack of knowledge about the Rorschach could give someone a "bias" in their comments here? Ward3001 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well cardiologists do not monopolize the the information about cardiac catheterizations or try to remove the images of their procedures from wikipedia. I am not saying that you should not contribute to the article or to the talk page. You are welcome to do so. I am suggesting that it looks like that here in wikipedia psychologists and psychiatrists might be trying to monopolize the information regarding Rorschach test as they perceive that this information may jeopardize their academic, professional or financial health. My arguments are same. My first argument is:"These plates are an essential for the article and therefore should remain in the article".My second argument is:"This attempt of wikipedia censorship is pointless, useless and ineffective as you cannot erase these plates from internet."123.50.162.4 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume bad faith by stating that psychologists here "might be trying to monopolize the information regarding Rorschach test as they perceive that this information may jeopardize their academic, professional or financial health". Do you think it's impossible for someone to earn his/her living as a psychologist and not resort to underhanded tactics? Do you understand that the psychologists here are focused on damage to the test because that damage can seriously impact the patients who benefit from this (or any other test)? Can you understand that something besides selfishness and financial greediness can be the motivation for the psychologists who contribute to this talk page? The vast majority of psychologists who visit this page decide very quickly to move on because they see that psychologists' opinions are not welcome here. Do you think that those of us who hang on are so desperate in our work lives that we can only survive by keeping images off of a Wikipedia article? Your emphasis on your speculation about the personal motivation of a few psychologists here seriously clouds the much more important issues. Ward3001 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The notion that people who are actually experts on a topic must inherently be inferior sources of information to folks who haven't had professional training in that topic seems kind of silly. If I wanted useful information on a cardiology procedure, I'd ask a cardiologist, not some random person who had decided to read up a bunch of medical stuff. The content of this page shows the folly of having pages be written by people who don't even know what they don't know.
I'll say it again. Those of us who are professionally trained in the administration and interpretation of psychological tests are not objecting to publishing useful encyclopedia-appropriate information, in a form that is understandable to a lay reader who is curious about the test, even if he's curious because he's going to be given it in the near future. We would like to be part of creating that article, so that we can both preserve the usefulness of the tests, help inform the public about what the tests do and do not do (hint: we still don't read or control minds!), and give a clear sense of the realistic strengths and limitations of the instrument. This applies not just to the Rorschach, but to any psychological test. The purposes of Wikipedia are not served by cutting us out of the process.
A brief digression: "Informed consent" to assessments is part of the APA Ethics Code, too (section 9.03). We explain these tests to people all the time, both before and after they are assessed. And the fact is that most assessments are completely voluntary -- the person being assessed, or someone who cares deeply about them, wants information and understanding. In the situations where assessments are involuntary, mandated by the courts (whether de jure or de facto), informed consent is still important -- even more so. We have to not only talk about the tests, but we have to also specifically warn the subject about how the information might end up in court (it's called a Lamb warning). But regardless, we literally cannot test someone who does not cooperate. No one can force you to speak about what you see in an inkblot. You say, "I don't see anything," or, "No, I don't want to do this test," and we're stuck. Test over. We can write about the fact that you didn't cooperate, but we can't generally claim that your lack of cooperation proves anything. APA Ethics Code, Section 9.01: "When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations." Given the amount of paranoia that exists around the Rorschach in the general (nonpatient) culture (whether it's justified or not), I personally wouldn't make any claims that being nervous about the Rorschach, by itself, proved anything about a client.
I made that digression because it seems to me that there is some kind of us-versus-them dynamic here, where psychologists are being cast into the role of "evil intrusive controlling censoring unwelcome other."
Psychological testing lets us see things that we might not otherwise be able to see, just like stethoscopes let medical doctors hear things that they might not otherwise be able to hear. It creates a sample of human behavior that we can use to make possibly meaningful comparisons to other people's behavior under identical circumstances, kind of like improving the controls on a scientific experiment. That's all it does. This is the professional service we offer to the public. We want the tests to stay secure so that they will stay more useful to us in doing that work so that people can get quality assessments. That's all. No nefarious motives. Why are we asserting that being an expert is worthwhile here? Because it takes a lot of training and experience to get good at it. Similarly, a trained and experienced doctor, listening to the funny noises made by the valves in a patient's heart, is going to know a lot more about what to notice and how to interpret the data provided by the stethoscope than an enthusiastic amateur.
We want to provide good and accurate information about the tests, consistent with our duty to help provide informed consent. But it's not just about duty: If someone is nervous about any psychological test, we want them to have access to accurate information that will help them decide whether they wish to consent or not. It will improve the validity of our test results if what we're seeing is a person who is participating in the process, not someone who is so freaked out about the imaginary possibilities that their test-session behavior isn't really a reflection of what they're like in real life. Even if that means that they decide they don't want to participate in certain tests, I'd rather have a client feel that I am a useful expert ally and fully participate in the tests they are willing to participate in, because my ability to help them and to advocate for them is improved.
"Advocate for them?" Yes. Thinking back over the times I've administered the Rorschach over the past year, in virtually every case, the results allowed me to take a kid who was being seen as "a bad kid in need of more discipline," and to help the grownups who were getting angrier and angrier at them (including people like judges and probation officers) understand that these kids were not "bad kids," but kids who were confused, traumatized, brain-damaged, terrified, despondent, achingly lonely, learning disabled, developmentally disabled, on medications that were making their problems worse, etc -- they were kids who were, in fact, doing the best that they could. I wasn't making excuses for the kids, but I was trying to help the adults understand what they actually could do that would help, instead of continuing the prior strategies that hadn't been working. Having good solid test data was part of how I was able to advocate for my clients.
To be continually attacked for someone's imaginary ideas about what evil ulterior motive we might secretly harbor is both against WP policy WP:AGF and really offensive. Mirafra (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional complaints will occur

The simplest thing to do here is to report the image poster to the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons and to the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, both of which have jurisdiction here. This is no threat, simply a statement of fact of what will ultimately occur here. Particularly because the poster has given the media provocative interviews; inter-professionally insensitive. Probably an additional aspect here is the doctor's attempt to practice outside his competencies. So at least 2 grounds. It is true that someone can find both blots and interpretations in various forms, and that this is also a potential challenge and violation of the integrity of the test, but to make this so readily available will ultimately provide test takers with an easy way to invalidate the use of the test for all future uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.133.40 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons the licensing board for physicians, or is there a separate board for that? Also, would the Canadian Medical Association have any interest in this matter? Ward3001 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the images are public domain (a fact everyone seems to forget) going after this doctor would just turn the whole mess into more of a media circus then it already is. He provided less information than is available to someone who takes the time to go looking through the publicly available material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that anyone "go after this doctor", but the issues of practicing outside of one's area of competence and claiming expertise that one does not have are often concerns of medical and psychological licensing boards. That has nothing to do with the images per se. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Sask Medical Association is the advocacy group for physicians, the Sask College of Physicians and Surgeons is the licensing authority, the Canadian Medical Association is a fraternal or association of colleagues. This doctor works for the Five Hills Health District http://www.fhhr.ca/community.htm who would also have an interest in his behaviour. Ultimately also the Sask Ministry of Health - who pays all the health bills in the province would probably have an obligation of some kind. The poster made this job-relevant by posting non-anonymously and with reference to his profession and work place. No doubt as an non-psychologist expert in psychological testing, he is also a non-lawyer expert in copyright laws, a non-statistician expert in reliability and validity matters including those with psychological tests, and perhaps also a non-ethicist expert in ethical practices of other professions, and also a human resources expert in the sense of security other professions have in their profession. I don't think criticising other professions as a group or as individuals in media interviews is considered a good idea professionally, but he has shown expertise in that, and in bringing controversy to himself. The error here may ultimately taking matters into his own hands and deciding that his interpretation of copyright law for these images and interpretation trumps any other issues, including those of professionalism, his and that of others. There is both the issue of the release of images and related info, and the doctor's conduct after the controversy occurred.


Never mind that I have found evidence that all the plates have been on the internet since at least 2003 and that links you to SPARC who has all 10 plates. As I said this horse has been out of the barn for a LONG time. As far as copyright goes THE IMAGES ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN BOTH THE US AND SWITZERLAND . That is not an "interpretation" that is a cold hard FACT. Go to Cornell University and look up their US copyright FAQ in PDF format] and see what it says about "Before 1923": In the public domain due to copyright expiration.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, there's no need to tell anyone "never mind" or to shout at us in bold letters. This issue has nothing to do with how long the images have been in the public domain or on the internet. There are other issues pertaining to this section. Unless you have suddenly become an expert on professional ethics and licensing board jurisdictions, please don't tell us to "never mind"; let others discuss this according to WP:TALK. Ward3001 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When people keep bringing up the "interpretation of copyright law" nonsense I have every right to yell in bold letters. Rorschach died on April 2, 1922 and in Dec of that year Switzerland passed a retroactive copyright of author's life + 30 years and the US had this really bizarre date of publication + 28 years with one renewal of 28 years. So you had Rorschach going public domain in Switzerland in 1953 and in the US in either 1949 or 1977 depending on if his heirs remembered to actively renew the US copyright. Even though it is called the Copyright Act of 1976 it didn't go into effect until Jan 1, 1978 and only affected works that were still copyrighted at that time under the old law. So Rorschach's plates have been public domain in his native Switzerland for 56 years (the 1955 law was not retroactive as had been the 1922 law) and in the US a minimum of 32 years. I should mention that thanks to the Copyright Act of 1976 and later Sonny Bono law you have this really bizarre situation where works are public domain in their author's native lands but not in the US. For example Conan Doyle's Holmes stories are public domain in UK and the Commonwealth but most of the Casebook stories are NOT public domain in the US and won't become such until 2018-2022 (1923 through 1927+95).--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-I fail to see the point about whether the images or information is in the public domain in one or another countries. Bruce misses the point entirely. It's about professional misbehaviour. And provocatively compounded by the poster's behaviour in the media. Primum non nocere. It is also possible to find items and info on other tests, as well as how to "fool" them. Wikipedia is about information, so it is no wonder that other sorts of issues are poorly understood, such as test standardization, norms, protection of test integrity etc. But there are those who can be held to account. Copyright is a minor issue in the posting of these images and related info from a professional perspective.-

Yes, Bruce has missed the point again. And Bruce, no you do not have the right to yell in bold letters. You have been told repeatedly that there are much more important issues in this section than copyright. And regardless, yelling in bold letters is uncivil and against standards of conduct on Wikipedia. So I will kindly repeat my request that you stop yelling, stop telling others to "never mind", stop assuming the only issue here is copyright, and allow others to discuss these matters here according to WP:TALK. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some other sources of Rorschach plates: "The Nuremberg Mind" (1975) and Poundstone's "Big Secrets" book (1983). This horse had been out for a LONG time. Little late to be locking the barn door.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what does this have to do with the major issues here: licensing board jurisdiction, practicing within one's area of expertise, and claiming expertise that one does not have? Ward3001 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the licensing board care about public domain images and where did Heilman ever claim he had expertise in a field outside of his own? Hayou, Carter (July 31, 2009 "Moose Jaw doctor draws ire over Rorschach on Wikipedia" The Moose Jaw Times Herald states "In his defence, Heilman said the inkblots have no copyright and are already widely accessible (with a little research) in library books or on other websites." Exactly the points I raised before even seeing that article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- He made comments in the media denigrating a profession and showing misunderstanding of the basic principle of test security. It matters not one tittle that the info if available elsewhere. He deliberately decided to enter into an area, representing himself as a physician. Copyright is at most a secondary issue with this. Quoted here: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/31/rorschach-test.html . And introductory psychology textbooks discuss the test but do not publish these exact blots nor specifics of interpretation of these specific blots.

In a discussion on this talk page (now in the archives) about expertise on the Rorschach, he said, "Actually I am an expert". Ward3001 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-point us to this please. Unless he can show that he has taken at least courses in psychological assessment, psychometric theory and has had supervised experience with this instrument, I think he's got a problem. As I understand it, projective testing is a specialised area with specific training required. I don't know of med schools certifying emerg MDs in psychological assessment let alone projective testing. I think it is probably helpful if there are multiple submissions about this to the 2 colleges in Sask: Psychology and Medical. The rulings sought would be about mainly his professional conduct. I don't think they would touch the copyright issues, of which I am ill-informed. I do know medical regulatory issues and standards however quite well.-

I just slugged through the regular archive searthing for an expert The closest thing I found was "And I am an expert on assessment." from Ward3001 in Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_2. There was a lot of stuff on that page by DIEGO say he was not an expert. "I'm an expert on the Rorschach' by Ward3001 again Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_3 followed by a lot of sarcastic stuff from Dreamguy about being a better expert then the experts. Now going on to the sub archives.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is in Talk:Rorschach test/images/2009-06 Arguments Pro##02 - No evidence of harm. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have not personally contributed here, but a visiting person using my computer without my knowledge has. My username may show up in some of these comments in this section. The edits by this person appear to be in good faith to the talk page by this retired health care admin person. I have disallowed further use. Just putting this in for clarity if required. It may be that some or all of these show up with an IP address. --Fremte (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'All of the pictures of the Inkblot Cards need to be removed. Posting them contaminates this tool, The Rorschach Test. Posting the popular responses further contaminates this test. It is a simple case of scuppering a professional clinical tool and needs to be stopped. In reality, the likelihood that prospective test takers would have studied the cards and memorized the popular responses is low. And if someone does (I have had this happen to me as a Clinical Psychologist once in over 25 years of work), you as the clinician can tell something's up, but it makes it that much harder to help the person, because the data they are giving you is false. The academic controversies around the test are a 'red herring' -- captivating, but not the point, a potent distraction. There is academic controversy around many psychological, as well as medical tests and treatments'. For example, Oncologists -- cancer doctors -- have heated debate about when to administer various aspects of treatment. Neuroanatomists have decades-long, passionate 'fights' with their colleagues about exactly where one structure ends and another begins. And so on. Does that mean we don't believe in the brain? In chemo-therapy? It would seem that it is only because of the provacative nature of the stimuli of this test, that all of this controversy has occurred and that the 10 blots have been allowed to remain posted this long. If Dr James Heilman had posted the answers to IQ tests, or to tests for risk of violence, wouldn't the good people at Wikipedia have removed them immediately? Edith Meyers (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Signed, Edith Meyers (I have a PhD in Neuroscience and Clinical Psychology, am a Chartered Psychologist and Chartered Scientist in the UK.) text'''[reply]

I think 'shutting the door after the horse has bolted' applies in this case (and seems to have been so for some time).

Responses to the images will be 'to some extent' determined by the socio-cultural environment/weltanschaung of the person taking the test - and responses will change over time for a variety of reasons. Having the images generally available means that they form part of the environment.

If the concept can be explained to them it would be possible to use the 'colour blindness circles tests' and the Snellen Charts with prehistoric humans, apes, and aliens etc (asking them to draw what they see, if more appropriate than naming the images) and get meaningful comparative data in the process. : this cannot be done wtih the inkblot tests. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like much of the media has published the blots as well. The personal threats are noted. I think a few people are taking this a little too seriously. To clarify for Ward3001 well I claimed to be an expert I never claimed to be an expert of the Rorschach. You are misinterpreting what I wrote.
You claimed to be an expert on psychology. Here is the full exchange [29]:
As you say, we live in an evidence based world. The APA, the representative body of psychologists (scientists) makes decisions based on evidence. Ethical matters deal with preventing harm to the public, which is why it is considered unethical to compromise tests.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
So what is this based on? BTW expert opinion is ranked as the lowest form of evidence.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that prior exposure to tests impacts the result of those tests. Do you propose that it doesn't? Since what you propose goes against common sense and against expert opinion, it would seem that the burdon of proof is on you to prove otherwise. As for your opinion about expert opinion, expert opinion is still evidence, whether you feel it is "lowest form" or not. Nonexpert opinion, such as yours, doesn't trump expert opinion when the two contradict each other.Faustian (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
So you claimed expertise in a field in which you have no expertise. And now you are being dishonest about it.Faustian (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of these images is based on a desire to create a comprehensive encyclopedia, nothing further. May I remind everyone that that is what we are here to do, we are here to create an encylopedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest the people at Encarta or Britannica aren't there to create an encyclopedia? Neither of those uses the real inkblots or gives answers.Faustian (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia has an objective of creating a comprehensive source of information, psychologists also have an objective of maintaining the integrity of psychological tests. While Rorschach tests are available elsewhere, posting them on a site as popular as Wikipedia would expose significantly more people to them. To keep results of these tests accurate, the tests and their results should not be displayed in whole on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.169.109 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To James: First of all, I don't see any personal threats. Personal threats would include threat of harm. I see discussion of professional ethics and conduct, and discussion of a public figure who voluntarily identified himself by name in a newspaper read worldwide. Secondly, the discussion in which you said "Actually I am an expert" was in a discussion of expertise in the Rorschach. You clearly claimed to be an expert in the Rorschach. I even challenged you soon after you made the comment, but you would not explain. You may wish to retract that statement now (which is your right), but at the time it was quite clear that you were referring to expertise in the Rorschach. Ward3001 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the images nor associations are that secret, they are reproduced in various places (books, online, etc.). To say that Wikipedia should censor them out is absurd. Somebody who reads it here by accident is not likely to remember it for the future, and somebody who wanted to learn about them in the first place would have little problem finding all the info anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is James Heilman claiming to be an expert:[30]

Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And as an "expert" voicing his opinion on this test in a newspaper: [31]. "Heilman said he has come under a lot of criticism, but noted the medical community is split quite dramatically over this test. "There are some who believe that this test is useless and there are some who believe this test is a godsend. So if you look at the published literature in the field of psychology, there are recent papers saying giving the test is dangerous and others saying the test isn't used frequently enough," he said. "So if the community of psychologists aren't sure about how useful this test is and it is being applied to the society at large, I think it is very important that we, as a society, discuss the merits of this test." (because naturally scietific controversies can best be resolved by "general society" with no idea of the test)

Here is the "expert" offering his opinions:

  • "Discussing this test does not do it harm. Most people who come here I would guess are actually health care providers and others in related feilds not those the test will be used up. Discussing it may actually do the test some good. We discuss the rest of health care honestly and I see no reason why this test is anything special. So no I do not see anything unethical with this page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Apparently the "expert" can't tell the difference between the test items/ansers and an honest discussion about the test)
  • The "expert" Heilman accusing psychologists of not following their own ethics code by trying to limit the images [32]: "The behavior of Faustian and Ward fall significantly below that recommended by the code of ethics they claim to support / follow. What they are attempting to do is unethical as per this code.--Doc James (talk contribs · email) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the "Expert sign of section" [33] he claimed: No evidence of harm therefore we do not need to worry about ethics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Here he is smiling about his notoriety [34]: Looks like the discussion is becoming infamously. They might just start showing the ten inkblots on the evening news yet if we all keep this up. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, if a psychologist were to contaminate next year's batch of flu vaccine and claim as an "expert" that it might not work anyways, he would lose his license. Here Dr. James Heilman has contaminated a widely used psychological test, claiming "expertise" and stating that in his (expert) opinion it isn't a big deal. Indeed he accuses the others of being unethical by opposing what he has done. I wonder how seriously his Medical College take the Hippocratic Oath, in particular " "Above all, do no harm".Faustian (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the "Actually I am an expert." comment Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Pro#.2302_-_No_evidence_of_harm ''in context'' it is unclear as to what Doc James is claiming expertise in. You could even say in context it looks like he was being sarcastic. Ward3001's position IMHO is like taking George Brown Goode's statement of the Smithsonian being one giant Museum of Anthropology at face value without understanding how Goode defined "Anthropology".
Another factor is Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." This statement (or the entire article) has has already been picked up by Medical News Today, Science Daily, EurekAlert! (run by the AAAS}, lab spaces, physorg.com , e! sciencenews.com, sciencecodex.com, Shrink rap Tri-City Psychology Services, and an increasing numbed of other sites as well as several blogs (which don't count as far as WP:RS goes). A search through the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archive and throwing out the chaff shows that Newsweek is regarded as [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36 "a highly reliable news magazine"] so the Newsweek article met WP:RS requirements despite Ward3001's efforts to blow it off as simply being among "popular magazines". Now we find that the statement is being made through the news section of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt about James's claim of expertise in the Rorschach, either in or out of context. The issue being discussed was expertise in the Rorschach, James wrote "I am an expert", I challenged him on it, and he did not clarify. Trying to refactor this in hindsight does not change what is in the archives. Ward3001 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on an editors personal ethics is not relevant to improving the article. Trying to scare him away with veiled threats is completely unacceptable. Please stop that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the point somewhat Apoc. The discussion is about his professional ethics (i.e., false claims of expertise). And when an editor publicly identifies himself by name to the world so that it is apparent to anyone (not just editors here) what he has misrepresented here, that becomes relevant to this discussion. We're not just talking about a Wikipedia editor; we talking about a public figure. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.medpedia.com/ uses real names and qualifications to increase transparency. Wikipedia however does not partly because of fear of personal attacks from less. I beleive in greater transparency however do understand the fears of many in letting there identity be known. Ward I am a physician which makes me a medical expert. Maybe we should bring this discussion to WP:ANI or arbitation or something.
There are complaints that psychologists are unable to improve this page. At this point it is difficult for anyone to make improvements. Partly due to the anymosity here and the fact that the page is block to all but admins. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James, most of us know you are a physician, and undoubtedly you have medical expertise. Some of us also know that a physician is not a psychologist, and that (with the exception of psychiatrists), most physicians have no expertise (nor claim it) in psychological testing. So the very critical question that you need to answer without hedging or circumlocution is: Do you claim to be an expert on the Rorschach? And do you claim to be an expert on any psychological test? In the past you have failed to respond to such inquiries. You might be able to bring this issue to a close if you'll be straightforward in your answer. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether James is a public figure or not, discussions on his personal ethics are still not relevant to this article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Apoc, for the second time, this is about professional ethics, not personal ethics. And a false claim of expertise is relevant. Ward3001 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it simply. The addition of these images has nothing to do with an expertise in psychology or any other feild for that matter. It has to do with consensus of wikipedians and the fact that these images are encylopedic. Certain editors not liking the decision of the majority is not going to change matters.
Also I would appreciate you give it a rest regarding who has what qualifications here. As mentioned on your talk page [35] it does not matter who is an expert in what. It matters that the material added to the main space is verifiable. And yes the images are truely the Rorschach images or do you have a ref that claims otherwise.
This page is about the Rorschach it is not about the ethics of those editing. Move this someplace else.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James, you are refusing to give a direct yes or no to the question of whether you claim to be an expert in the Rorschach. And why is that? Is it because you don't want to dispel your false claims of expertise, or that you don't want to admit that you made misleading claims? And I didn't ask the question in terms of the images. Your answer is quite relevant. You said, "Actually I am an expert". If you are claiming to be an expert in the Rorschach, you then have tried to use that claimed expertise to sway opinions here. Let me try to give you an analogy. I am a psychologist. I know more about neuropsychology than the average person, and I have administered some neuropsychological tests within the limits of my training and background. But I do not claim to be an expert on neuropsychology. If someone needs a neuropsychologist, I refer them elsewhere. So I can give a clear, unequivocal "no" if I am asked, "Are you an expert in neuropsychology?" Since you have said "Actually I am an expert", some here have chosen to interpret that as an expert in the Rorschach, and you have not denied that. Can you give a clear and unequivocal yes or no to the question: Do you claim to be an expert on the Rorschach? If you continue to avoid answering the question directly, we have no choice but to conclude that you do not wish to clarify this matter, making your claim "Actually I am an expert" misleading. You can settle it easily with a yes or a no. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ward this is irrelevant.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. You do not wish to dispel misleading claims of expertise. You wish to perpetuate the false impressions. That speaks volumes. We can all now without any hesitation say, James has no expertise in the Rorschach. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent I am glad that we have this settled. Now let move on.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hide the associations?

How about we use Template:Hidden to hide the word associations, so only those who want to read them will be motivated to click "show" and read it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that has been discussed before (about the images themselves, but same thing) and 1) there's no consensus 2) it's against guidelines. --LjL (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciating Conflicting Ethics

I think it's unfortunate that some psychologists have made such a power struggle out of this, rather than maintaining a constructive attitude. Rather than the same old ethics vs. free press debate, there are other angles we could look at.

First, these images being included in Wikipedia should be a red flag to psychologists. They're in the public domain and available on the web - and psychology has not kept up to the computerized world by adjusting itself. Here is an opportunuity Wikipedia has provided for the profession to decide whether it needs to develop new tests and copyright them, or abandon the old tests in favour of existing copyrighted ones. The profession has for years neglected to adjust to the information age in this way, even though for a long time they have known the power of the web and the laws around public domain. There's no point in blaming the media, which has alternate ethics. It's the responsibility of the psychology profession to adjust, rather than assume the media should bend its ethics to psychologists' ethics, as if the ethics of psychologists is superior.

Second, blaming the doctor is meaningless. Anyone could have put the images up. I think it's a good thing to have people who are interested in this subject learn about it. This can provide benefits to the public good. Maybe inspire some readers to study psychology. Or help people think a bit about psychology, which might even lead them to see a therapist down the road. There is no reason to believe the psychology profession's ethic of keeping tests secret does more good than the media's or education profession's ethic of sharing information. Psychologists should realize they live in a shared world with other professions, all of which think differently, and none of which necessarily has the right answer. 66.183.132.33 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments (or a question and a comment): What do you mean by "old" ethics? The APA ethical standards have been revised within the past four years. I'm sure the American Medical Association's and Canadian Medical Association's ethical codes have been revised recently.
Second, the issue is more than "blaming the doctor" for posting the images. The issue also has been the professional conduct and ethics of the doctor, that doctor's misrepresentation of himself as an expert in matters he knows almost nothing about or had any training in, and that doctor's denigration of other professionals. Ward3001 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank 33 for his / her very reasoned comments. And sorry Ward but it is you who is misrepresenting what I have said. You continue to do so even after I have corrected you. I have not denigrated your profession. Only certain members of it. You words speak clearly on there own however and need little help from me. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your "correction" of me was itself a misrepresentation of the facts. So, likewise, your words continue to confirm your pattern of misrepresentation, whether we talk about your improperly claimed expertise or your denigration of psychologists even in the very message you just wrote denying it. Thanks for making my points. Ward3001 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

66.183.132.33, I appreciate your thoughtful input in this debate. Ward, perhaps your opinions about James are better suited on his or your talk page than this article talk page. Chillum 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, perhaps my comments are best suited on this page on which James made improper claims about his expertise (and I have provide the link to that above) and on which he has denigrated psychologists. Maybe your constant refrain of "take it to [whoever's] talk page" is getting so tiresome that it's meaningless. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No personal attacks applies. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out an editor's misrepresentation of his expertise is not a personal attack. If I claim to be the world's expert in astrophysics, and proceed to make major changes in the article on that basis, and then I revealed that I am not an expert publicly, it would be appropriate to point that out. Ward3001 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC), James said "Actually, I am an expert". In context, I personally read this as him being an expert, but not necessarily in the Rorschach test; i.e. he was referring to his status as an expert in medicine. Both yourself and Faustian provided rebuttals that he did not counter; thus he tacitly conceded that he is not an expert on the Rorschach. IMO, there's no point belabouring it further. –xenotalk 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this has gotten a bit too personal. Ward, I think that it's reasonable to discuss whether someone has made a claim of expertise inappropriately, but this isn't just about James, and making it a personal fight between the two of you doesn't make you (or any of the other psychology types) look reasonable. James may be an instantiation of a particular POV that you and I find personally and professionally objectionable, but what we're really talking about here is not about him at all. Mirafra (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The salient point here is that Wikipedia's article appears at or near the top of search results for the search term "Rorshach test", that is why this debate is valid despite the amount of other easily obtainable information in the public domain. Wikimedia's views RE freedom of speech and articles written by consensus, are at best intellectually dishonest; in that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on say bomb making, or how to make poison. Excluding such information is a political decision based on social responsibility. Exactly the same reasoning should apply as to whether to display Rorschach test images and results. At the very least there should be a button at the top of the article that warns readers that the images and test results will be displayed, to give readers a choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.190.230 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have all along said I was a physcian. It says as much on my talk page. I have commented that physicians do not learn about the Rorschach in medical school or anywere else for that matter. How you figured out after all of this that I was somehow claiming expertise wrt to the Rorschach is beyond me.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes a nice strawman for people to beat on rather than contest things like Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." To date nothing contesting this statement being made through the news section of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology has been presented and I doubt there will be for a while as it is so new.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is tedious. Because Isanski (who is a publicist, not a psychologist) claims in a press release that a 2000 article is "the last word" does not make it so. The APA Journal Psychological Assessment did a lengthy series on the topic in 2001-2003, the overall conclusions of which were that the validity of the Rorschach equalled that of the best personality inventories, including the MMPI-2. The references to this are given in the Society for Personality Assessment statement on Rorschach validity, the reference to which I posted above. In addition further meta-analytic studies have been published in the interim (9 years is more than a "few," especially in terms of scientific research). Despite this, uninformed individuals continue to post claims that the Psych. Science piece is the "last word." This is, unfortunately, what happens when the media gets ahold of a technical issue: laypersons latch onto definitive statements by publicists as if they were scientific truth, and the facts become obscured. We are seeing this with posts like that above.SPAdoc (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Isanski did NOT say "last word" but rather "most definitive word" a totally different thing. Second, I have to question if some WP:SYN is not going on as to date where have been statement but few actual quote out of these other articles. Third, we have Dr. John Grohol in "Rorschach, Research and Wikipedia" stating "That very well may be the case, but there's very little evidence that actually shows that any type of pre-exposure to the inkblots taints the results. In fact, I couldn't find a single study that examined this issue. So while it is a widely-held belief amongst many psychologists, it's not a belief grounded in scientific data for the Rorschach (what some psychologists might refer to as an "irrational belief")." Fourth, as I asked before regarding court cases and Grohol confirmed as far as general modern practice is concerned Rorschach doesn't stand alone but in tandem with other projective and objective tests. He even sates int he same article linked to above "Because it's administered in a larger set of psychological tests, the psychologist who analyzes the test data is looking for trends or similarities amongst the disparate tests. A single odd score on the Rorschach would likely be dismissed, if not confirmed by other psychological testing data." Finally, going back to the Isanski article this is coming out of the news division of an organization who publishes journals on Psychology. Certainly an organization that publishes journals on Psychology is going to keep tabs on what its news division is putting out and control it so not to damage its reputation. It is simple common sense to do so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence whatsoever that John Grohol knows anything about the Roschach, and his comments are on ... huffingtonpost.com??? GIVE ME A BREAK! Bruce, I'm sorry, but you really can come up with some incredible (read that as completely unscientific) sources. I suppose your next scan of the "literature" will be in the tabloids. You are aware that there are peer-reviewed journals on psychological assessment aren't you? Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Two comments Bruce. I asked James above to give us a simple, unequivocal, straightforward answer as to whether he claims to be an expert on the Rorschach or any other psychological test. If he can do so, that could bring this issue to a close (or if he is non-commital or vague) let others know whether he is willing to deny expertise in the Roschach. Second point, bolding letters does not make your point more believeable; you have no basis other than your own opinion that the source you mention is the most definitive word on the Rorschach". There are a number of exhaustive reviews of the Rorschach, including subsequent to the one you mention. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good God, you're still banging the drum about which editors here are experts on the test? I am more of an expert than self-proclaimed experts who falsely tried to claim that 80% of all psychologists used the test, that it's considered valid in the field, etc. The point isn't whether *you* ior *I* call ourselves experts, it's what the outside world's experts that can be proven to be so say, and that's pretty obvious. All the latest studies show the Rorschach is pseudoscientific bunk. The people who think it has value are the people who want to get paid big bucks to read bumps on other people's heads instead of using real science or the company selling copies of the test. Of course those people are going to try to claim the test works... and astrologers try to claim astrology works, the flatearthers still say the world is flat, and the "intelligent design" people try to claim there's no evidence for evolution. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep repeating your ill-informed personal opinion over and over again, but that doesn't make it scientific consensus. Read the articles SPADoc is referencing, for instance. The test is certainly not universally used -- no test is. Part of why psychological evaluation is not done by trained monkeys is that, over time, each professional develops a personal repertoire of instruments they find to be particularly useful in guiding their clinical judgment. Different people find different types of instruments to be more and less personally useful, even when scientific studies show them to have equal validity. There are professional disagreements throughout psychology regarding different tests and the best ways to evaluate for different types of conditions. That's all normal. There are also professional disagreements throughout any professional field, and it can be very difficult for someone who hasn't taken the time to get the big picture to really make sense of it. Nor are the personal attacks on your imagined nefarious motives of the professionals involved in psychological evaluation even remotely appropriate to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, or WP:NPOV. Mirafra (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I can hardly imagine that someone whose user page highlights a quote that, "Experts are scum," has a particularly helpful perspective here in terms of helping us come to some kind of consensus about whose professional opinions are worth thinking about. It's hard for me to assume that you're acting in good faith and that you agree that experts are actually welcome in WP when that's something you consider to be important. (Plus, your rather consistently nasty tone and refusal to cite sources outside of your own head.). Mirafra (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read in context, DreamGuy's the quote on DreamGuy's page there is actually sympathetic to the concerns of experts. –xenotalk 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me Xeno, but which quote are you referring to? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from his user page. "Experts are scum" ... (because Randy from Boise wants to include mention of sword-wielding skeletons...) –xenotalk 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. When you endorse something like "The Wikipedia philosophy is that experts are scum," -- endorsing the notion that expertise is not welcome on WP in general -- it's kind of hard to tell whether the sympathy is towards someone with real-world credentials or Randy from Boise. Mirafra (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see DreamGuy's comment as just a sarcastic variant of Sturgeon's Law and the "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")" part of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Going over Sagan's list you can see that several of them seem to apply to the Rorschach Test. Fr example, the Double blind test seems to be the Rorschach Test's biggest stumbling block as explained in "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading" article; the very nature of the test causes problems in this area. I should mention by Mirafra reasoning Ward3001's endorsement of "Wikipedia's days are numbered, I fear, consumed by its own nonfeasance. Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say." doesn't bode well either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, since you brought up the quote on my user page, I should point out that I include you among those editors who have "decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say". No offense, but you're the one who decided to bring up my user page. Did you happen to continue reading and see "We need a content arbcom drawn from reputable reliable institutions that partner with Wikipedia"? Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are using peoples personal talk pages I summit the parts of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit present on my own that I have seen a lot of here: Argument from "authority", Ignoring of "Occam's razor", Observational selection, and Excluded middle.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that we're arguing from authority. We've presented scientific sources numerous times. Mirafra (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reflist template

The documentation for the reflist template says:

Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided.

Would anyone object to changing it to either 2 columns or to colwidth=30em? If you prefer one or the other, please note that.--Rockfang (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to 30em. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Availability

  1. Even if# the images are totally blocked on WP, they have been available on WP and elsewhere for 'some time' now, and the controversy has probably alerted many curious people to their availablity. The horse has left the stable (because the cat is out of the bag?) and #whatever# healthcare people now do or say they will have to assume some familiarity with the images. As in other cases there is a boomerang effect - complaining loudly about the publication of the images ensures greater publicity.
  1. However# what seems to be the key point is the 'interpretation of responses to the images' - how Broadmoor patients' responses differ from the person on the street or 'the average genius/sports star/captain of industry' etc. So long as #this# information is safe, how does publication of the images affect interpretation?

Can some of this discussion be archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we are not just concerned about the images themselves. We are also concerned about the discussion of how the tests are scored and interpreted. I think we can write a good and informative article that will do justice both to the public's desire to know about these things and to the profession's need to keep them secure. We cannot do that, however, in the current climate, where the educated opinions of psychology professionals are not welcome. Nor can we do it in a climate where self-appointed amateurs are pushing their personal POV that psychological tests are pseudoscience and attempting to use WP not just to inform the public, but also to destroy the usefulness of the tests and to control the actions of professionals whose work serves an important public good. Mirafra (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be 'one of the usual circular arguments': the professionals wish to keep some information opaque so the systems work properly (much as the police may hold back some information on particular cases to identify useful contributors from (colloquially) attention seekers and other hinderances); those who observe the situation wish to be better informed and others go in for creative conspiracy theory generation. Unlike the colour-blindness tests there seems to be a high degree of subjectivity in the analysis, and probably 'most of us' will have different associations for some of the images which reflect 'harmless quirks and particular tastes' - eg seeing a wolf on Plate 1 without any 'possible flags of problems in other areas'

Given the date of the original images, the general knowledge of some of them, the length of time since the 1969 analysis, and other changes - eg Internet, Wikipedia, Second Life - it is perhaps time for a reconsidering. The intent should be to satisfy general curiosity (how are the images used etcd that 'to the casual observer' there seems to be a high degree of subjectivity, perhaps it is time for a reconsidering (the impact of eg the and other means of exploring what we might wish to be).

When the kerfuffle dies down there should be a reworking of the article covering the key areas of historical development and how the tests are used.

There are always arguments about the spread of knowledge to laypeople - and eg some of the 'information readily available on ganfyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable summation of the problem. I'd like to clarify that the current usage of the test is actually much less subjective than most people think it is (it is substantially a neuropsychological test, with the projective aspects taking a supplementary role, and even those are interpreted in light of population norms rather than being purely the whim of the evaluator), and that the normal variation within the population about what people see and why they see it is absolutely taken into consideration in the interpretive system. Mirafra (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirafra: Your recent posts have summarized the discussion beautifully. I would like to get away from the specifics of the issue of the plates themselves and expand upon a couple of general issues. I think some of the posters don't fully appreciate the reasons behind keeping certain test materials secure. If the tests function better that way, they allow for a more accurate diagnosis and/or personality description. To use a couple of analogies: when researchers use double-blind studies in order to test the effectiveness of drugs or other treatments, informing the subjects of which condition they were in might fulfill someone's version of "freedom of information," but it would make it impossible to accurately test the effectiveness of the drug or treatment. The reference to the eye chart is another example. There is nothing gained by having that available on the internet, but there is an increase in danger to the public in that visually-impaired individuals might be given driver's licenses. The chart could have just as easily been posted with the letters in a scrambled order. The same pedagogical function would have been served without danger. One other point that I want to make. There seems to be a general hostility to psychology and mental health in the tenor of some posts. These have the subtext of "if they are so worried about their precious tests, let them make new ones. If they don't, it's their problem." If Wikipedia were to post something that had the potential of invalidating CT-scans or MRI's (thus making the diagnosis of cancer more difficult), I doubt the attitude would be: "if radiologists can't come up with another kind of test, that's their problem." Somehow, the accurate diagnosis of psychiatric disorders is viewed as less important to the public. Curious.SPAdoc (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, SPAdoc, is that based on the very design of the Rorschach test (as presented by Wood in "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading") there are going to be problems with double blind. For example, if someone looking at Plate 6 says "I see a Klingon battle ship" the psychologist now knowns he has a Star Trek fan or perhaps fullblown Treker/Trekie on his hands. Someone seeing Plate 3 as "two gnomes riding striders" has told the psychologist they play a lot of WOW. I grew up on a lot of PBS and so see Plate 7 as coral or a vase while Plate 9 reminds me of an oil slick that I saw under my father's car years ago. Then what do do when you have a cultural shift like the internet which as we know it is not even 10 years old?

What is going to happen when somebody says Plate 5 is the headdress of some anime character the psychologist odds are has never even heard of? Better yet how do plates 8 through 10 work with color blind people?

One the most troubling thing in all this is the effort psychologists have put into this and their apparent lack of effort regarding public hysteria around Satanism and Dungeons & Dragons in the 1980s to the point the Center for the Treatment of Ritualistic Deviance out of Hartgrove Hospital in Chicago was set up to address the problems of the "crazy" Satanists and Dungeon & Dragons players despite Armando, Simón, (1987) "Emotional Stability Pertaining to the Game of Dungeons & Dragons." Psychology in the Schools, p. 329-332 showing the whole premise was garbage. Where was the vaulted "do no harm" then?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bruce, psychologists don't all live under rocks. Some of us are well aware of fannish culture and other non-white-bread cultures and subcultures. The rest do this amazing thing -- when they hear a response they're not familiar with, they actually look it up on the intertubes, or they consult with other folks who know more about it. I'm not kidding here -- these precise types of discussions happen all the time on the professional lists, for precisely this reason.
As for color-blindness, actually, that's been studied. Remember that most folks who are color-blind are not profoundly color-blind -- in the one paper I found on a quick search (Corsino, Bruce V. (1985). Color blindness and Rorschach color responsivity. ; Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol 49(5), Oct, 1985. pp. 533-534.), they found no important differences between color-blind folks and normally-sighted controls. If someone is known to be seriously color-blind, then duh, that would affect one's interpretation of the variables related to color, but not necessarily to other variables -- what we do is note the difference and consider carefully how this will affect our conclusions. It's not rocket-science, nor is it the kind of mechanistic black-and-white process you seem to think it must be.
As for the rest of your screed, this is a classic bit of nonsense, a crude attempt to change the subject. You're saying that if any psychologist anywhere has ever gone off in some weird direction because they didn't understand D&D in cultural context, that therefore no psychologist can possibly be trusted to be clueful and helpful, and that the entire process of psychological testing must automatically be completely invalid because, no matter what the research says, you know you're right? Puh-leeze. Mirafra (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce, your comments come from a complete ignorance (not an attack, we're all ignorant about many things) about the coding system for the Rorschach. The examples you gave are easily coded by someone with a modicum of training in coding. The average high school student, with some training in coding the Rorschach, could do the coding of that example (interpretation of the coding results requires vastly more training and experience). You essentially created a straw man because your assumptions are completely contrary to realities of Rorschach coding. Ward3001 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klingons and WoW, #are# examples of a subjective component - and any psychologist who cannot ask 'what do you mean by that?' will not be able to carry out an effective job anyway.

The Snellen charts issue could be easily resolved with a 'computer screen with a controlled random letter generator' (so the testee will be presented with an unlearnt layout) and the colour blindness tests can be used for self-identification of possible visual problems by non-experts without too high a degree of false positives.

The problem is - most laypeople can understand practical comparisons 'we are seeing the effects of using/not using this particular drug/activity/combination of drugs and activities' or the radiologist's 'this mark on the X-ray/this colour on the scan means Y' - but psychology, psychiatry and other means of analysis #seem# to involve too many variables and assumptions.

Given that the article tells people various aspects of the test (does the person rotate the image and ask permission to do so) it could be argued that 'the proverbial testee' already has some pointers. Most of the people looking at this article will recognise the distinction between 'what is done/the tests being used' (which can be at least partially in public view) and the particular analysis thereof (which will depend on many factors, and which will require trained analysis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 83.104.132.41, you also don't have a clue about the coding process. First of all, any decent psychologist will ask follow-up questions. Secondly, the coding of such a response is NOT subjective. Every reasonably trained psychologist would code the response the same way. Once again, you've created a straw man because you have no knowledge of the coding process. Ward3001 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the psychologist implied that an effective/decent psychologist #would# be asking further questions - and where is the 'straw man' in distinguishing the 'public part' and the 'particular analysis' (which will include the coding 'and all other aspects of analysis') - the 'wolf' response is likely to map quite differently for someone who is into 'vampires, werewolves and suchlike'/Roman military history, or who has certain psychological problems.

Each society has its own cultural assumptions - #who# can do #what# which will, to some extent, define 'normality' eg the Viking Beserker or the Victorian image of the woman as the 'Angel in the House.'

'The areas of vagueness, misunderstanding and unclarity' on this talk page can be used in developing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 83.104.132.41, please explain how the "wolf" response would be coded differently depending on whether someone is into vampires or werewolves compared to someone who has psychological problems? Which specific codes would change? Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to me to reveal a disturbing trend that one can see throughout the controversy: a barely disguised hostility to the profession of psychology. To follow Grubb's "logic," we would need to say that no surgeon can be trusted because there have been instances of malpractice; internists are all quacks, because they used to believe that bacterial infection was unrelated to peptic ulcer disease. Similarly, the attitude of some posters here has been "if publication damages your precious tests, tough s--t for you." No one would say that if the subject were an MRI or CT Scan. I believe this hostility stems from the fact that many laypersons don't want to believe that anyone else has expertise in the area of mind or psyche, lest there be something about themselves that is uncovered. If psychological tests are discredited, those seeking help for mental illnesses (who deserve as much care as those seeking help for physical illnesses) suffer. As for cultural relevance affecting Rorschach responses: of course this is the case. I'm pretty sure that no one ever gave a response of Ewok or Wookie to a Rorschach blot prior to 1976. So what? The Comprehensive System for coding and interpreting the test was designed in part to take that kind of subjectivity out of the process. When confronted with responses that are unfamiliar, competent psychologists try to find out if there really is such an animal or fantasy figure, or whatever. Questions that come from ignorance are important and need to be answered; Strident statements that come from ignorance only serve to discredit the speaker.SPAdoc (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differing philosophies

I think the issue we have here is one of differing philosophies. We have one group which believes information should be freely available and is attempting to catalog the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world at large. Than we have another group who wish to restrict access to this information on the bases of theoretical harm. I think both sides have heard the arguments of the other. Neither side is swayed. Wikipedia however is based on the philosophy of the first argument and has the support of the majority. It has therefore won. Now if only we could all accept this and move on....--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also agree but the problem is what is going to going to prevent those who do not accept the idea that the plate should be available even if they are public domain when the page is finally unlocked? I don't think we want an edit war turning this page into a WP:EW mess or where a small group feels they basically Wikipedia:own the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James, you've confirmed what the psychologists have been saying all along: You view this as a game with winners and losers. Majority rules without consideration of the minority's opinions. What you are calling "consensus" here (on this talk page only, not Wikipedia in general) is determined by majority vote. Thanks for making out point. Ward3001 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I don't think we will ever change the mind of those who want the images removed, and I don't think they will ever get consensus to remove them. I am all for moving on and dropping this matter. We also can't keep the page protected forever so I suggest blocking anyone who edit wars or ignores consensus instead of letting the article suffer. Chillum 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Hello, I'm completely new to this dabate. Well, that's not quite true (I was up till 3am last night reading all the archives... I know - sad, sad sad!). Sometimes another voice in a debate that has gone on for years (yes, I was very surprised to see how tenaciously the same arguments have clung to their respective rocks), can help... or not - I don't know, anyway:

-There's a lot of truth in the point that 'its all out there anyway' (perhaps Psychology authorities need to think what might be next to be 'outed', and try to close that stable door)
-"to catalogue the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world". Seems a good and noble cause. But there are exceptions. There was a case recently where a senior Policeman in the UK carried a document about an anti-terror operation in a see through folder into No. 10 Downing Street. Naturally enough he got in big trouble. If I recall correctly the Media all showed the crucial page, but with the details blurred. Perhaps Wikipedia could take a similar line... the Psychologists professional bodies have erred in not protecting what they should have according to thier own code - to expose this is fine, but to reveal actual details is perhaps not... (analogy not great, because the Police operation details were not already available as in the Rorschach case)
-Standardised Tests (I was introduced to one as part of an Occupational Therapy training) DO take a lot of research over a long time. To potentially accelerate the invalidation of one, just for the sake of "all information must be out there", seems a tad vandalistic to me.
-Surely Psychologists don't rely on the Rorschach as a major tool for diagnosis (someone can correct me here, but there must have been great strides made with other tools/techniques since 1927)
-Unfortunately it seems (sorry, its in the archives somewhere) that courts have greatly increased their use (and reliance?) on the Rorschach in recent years. That's worrying, and WP doesn't help if the tests really are spoiled by prior exposure...
-Surely its well documented that prior exposure to a given stimulus does affect outcomes. As a simple example, that famous psychology text book image of the candlestick/two faces, can never be seen as just one or the other after realisation/explanation.
There we are, I'm sure the arguments will continue but I hope that the Psychology profession is, as we speak, creating alternate, reliable, safeguarded tools.--Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting way of framing giving out the answers and the test items to a test. Is doing so for medical licensing exams, the SAT, etc. also comparable in your opinion? Does doing so indicate a belif that "information should be freely available and is attempting to catalog the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world at large." Does opposing doing this constittue "restrict access to this information on the bases of theoretical harm." Is wikipedia a site for leaking tests if you can get away with it (copyright, etc.) or an encyclopedia? Do the two have to be the sasme thingFaustian (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... having trouble with line breaks, paras, etc.. didn't mean to hide my signature... I'll try here... --Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess wikipedia is already a site for leaking things if they can be, by virtue of the fact that anyone can post anything at least for a while. Its just in the nature of it. Guidelines are great, but an open access system is bound to used (and abused). On another point: Its not really a 'leak' if its already freely available. The professionals view seems to be that everyone should respect ethical considerations, however in reality that's not going to happen.Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments, Jabberwock. I'll just respond to part of what you wrote. No psychological test actually makes a diagnosis. As you suggest, a test is a tool used by the diagnostician. Psychologists have many such tools available, including a variety of tests. But they don't all do the same thing. The Rorschach is a major tool used by psychologists (but not the only one), and the casual, flippant attitude that many have shown here about damaging its validity, especially someone who claims to be a healer (and falsely claims to be an expert), is an ethical tragedy. Ward3001 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an ethical tragedy, but is the tragedy the making of casual flippant attitudes (which you can expect to get on WP), or made by the failure of people who recognised that its validity was vulnerable but did not put adequate safeguards in place? Jabberwock359 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for the most part, Jabberwock. But one of your points is unclear. What "safeguards" could have been put in place that weren't. It was impossible to legally extend the copyright on the images. The current test took 90 years of research to get to its current status. Any attempt to develop a new test would take decades of research, millions of dollars, and with no guarantee that it would have equivalent usefulness. One possible safeguard would have been more stringent control of the behavior of physicians or other health professionals by their respective governing bodies to avoid wreckless behavior, but that's beyond the control of psychologists. What other safeguards could have been put in place? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they therefore knew that the copyright would expire and did nothing to prepare for that situation. If you're saying (as it seems) that "there's nothing they could do", then the test should have been recognised as having a limited lifespan and treated accordingly. (I do wonder how the test was made available to non-Psychology professionals in the first place.)

Also, why - given that they could see it's limited life-span and the time needed to create a new one - did they not start making that new one earlier?Jabberwock359 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, you're engaging in 20-20 hindsight, which can be very misleading. First, expiration of the copyright and public exposure of the images was not a serious issue until the explosion of the internet and proliferation of websites. In relative terms, that happened quickly (relative to exposure the old fashioned way, which was an extremely slow process relative to the internet). Secondly, what could psychologists have done in the few years it took to realize that the internet posed a problem regarding exposure? As I've said, development of the Rorschach to its current level of usefulness took about nine decades. Development of a new test would take decades, cost lots of money, and all without any guarantee that a replacement test would be one-tenth as good. Some tests are much more easily revised. The MMPI underwent a major revision. That took some years, but it's a paper-pencil test with a finite number of questions and responses. The MMPI developers were able to blend old items with new items, allowing for some continued reliance on older research. Additionally, the revised test could then be copyrighted, essentially providing additional decades of protection. Not so with a test like the Rorschach. Some years ago, a psychologist named Holtzman tried to develop a different inkblot test. For clinical purposes it essentially is useless. So in the few years since websites have begun posting the images, what do you suggest could have been done? Ward3001 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is a form of 20-20 hindsight. But that's my point - if it was inevitable that the internet would proliferate out of copright stuff, and that's only been plain for a 'few years' (although I think many years would be nearer the mark) - then those 'few years' could have been used profitably by the Psychology authorities to warn Courts etc. that the test would shortly become invalid. Instead, one imagines the professionals whispering to each other: 'hush don't say a word about it and maybe we can carry on using it for a little longer before the proverbial hits the fan'. So its a bit disingenuous to blame the latest publicists - a bit like shooting the messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwock359 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warn the courts? What would that accomplish? The courts can't come up with a new test. Most people in the court system know even less than the average person who reads this talk page about what to do about these issues. That does nothing to avoid any problems created for the test. The most that would have accomplished would have been to evoke a response of "What do you want us to do about it?" Further, warning the courts does nothing for the vast majority of cases in which the Rorschach has been useful: clinical, not forensic, uses. And your comment of professionals "whispering to each other" is described perfectly in one word you used: imagine. That's your imagination. You portray psychologists as sneaky whisperers who live under a rock and don't know what's going on in the world. I'm one of those professionals, and I'm well connected to many other of those professionals. There was no whispering. There was a quick realization that nothing could be done (except what has been done). And sorry, but I strongly disagree that the proliferation of websites occurred over many years; remember I'm talking about relative time. What you say is a bit like saying that the current economic crisis should have been anticipated by the average investor 10 years ago. The web didn't even exist 20 years ago, and it didn't catch on instantly. Again, you're using 20-20 hindsight. I don't know how old you were in 1989, but most of the concepts prevalent in the web were not imagined by many people back then. Lots of people didn't even own computers then. And the ones that were owned by the average person were incredibly slow. If you had asked someone around 1993 how long would it be before almost any image that exists will be available almost instantly to almost anyone in the world, the speculation probably would have been 30 or 40 years or more. In relative terms (considering the life of the Rorschach is about 90 years), the explosion of websites was rather sudden. I'm afraid your 20-20 hindsight has given you a very distorted perspective of the way things actually were over the last decade or so. There essentially was nothing psychologists could have done to avoid these problems that they did not actually do. Some people here and on other websites have taken lots of shots at the mental health system, but no, psychologists are not shooting the messenger. Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologists have known virtually forever that the copyright was going to expire. Just assuming that, even after the copyright expired, you would be able to keep the term materials convidential shows an incredible lack of insight. Be it the web or something else, it really didn't take rocket science to realize the probability of "leaking" would increase drastically with the test material going public domain.
As for one's "mistaken" imagination about psychologists "whispering" and conspiring... what should one think when the society selling Rorschach still insists on wrongly claiming copyright on something that's clearly not copyrighted anymore (I call that a "lie"), and psychological organizations here and there threaten to sue here and there (I call that "bullying")?
I guess these entities don't represent psychologists as a whole, but you have to understand why our "imagination" flies free. --LjL (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is absurd and shows your lack of insight. Read the comments above and below. With or without copyright, there was very little public exposue of the images prior to the proliferation of websites. And the publisher of the Rorschach test does not claim copyright; that is a lie and I challenge you to provide proof that Hogrefe and Huber (the publisher) claims copyright. They have a current trademark on "Rorschach test", but they do not claim copyright to the images. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between copyright and trademark. Ward3001 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've taken offence because I said 'whispering', and I nearly took offence at being cast as someone with 'distorted 20-20 hindsight'. Perhaps I'll remind myself about the warnings at the top of the page about keeping things calm neutral and non personal.. perhaps you might too. That being said, we actually agree on a lot of things. I too think its a terrible shame that ignorance about a proven useful test has allowed it to be invalidated (if not already then quite soon). One needs to study or at least read a little to know about tests, research, what goes into verifying results etc., before dismissing them, which sadly some of the contributors on these pages have done. So I can quite believe that it took 90 years, essentially, to build the Rorschach up to its level of usefulness prior to the internet proliferation of the images. Far from thinking that Psychologists are 'sneaky people living in caves', I actually have a lot of respect for them, and have worked along side them in multi-disciplinary mental health teams. I guess my basic question to you is: what's the point in hammering away at the folks who have merely done what you acknowledge was inevitable? Are you hoping that somehow the consensus can reach the point of agreeing that the images should not be displayed? I fear that the contributors who think that 'all information should be freely available' may not see the point that there are special cases where that is not true. And if we persuade other Wikipedians, how will we keep a lid on all the other (and future) websites.I'm genuinely curious as to whether you think the test is saveable in its present form. Thanks for your replies, by the way. Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

apologies to the people who started this section about 'different philosophies'. I have created a big digression, and if anyone knows how to lift the exchange between Ward and me to another section, please go ahead. Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't take offense at the whispering comment. I was taken aback because it is so contrary to reality. And now, so is your comment "I can quite believe that it took 90 years ... to build the Rorschach up to its level of usefulness" contrary to reality. How long do you think it took? H. Rorschach developed the test in 1921. Much research has been added every year in the last 20 to 30 years, so that takes us to 2009 in the development to the current level. The images weren't proliferated on the internet until the last five years or so. You do the math. About 83 years; I was off by about 7 years. So whether you believe it or not, it's a fact.
And I do agree that we agree on a lot. As for the "hammering away", that's a completely different issue than blaming the psychologists for the problems. I and several other psychologists here have addressed that issue of why the images should not be on Wikipedia despite being elsewhere on the internet at great length on this talk page. I don't think it would be appropriate to suddenly quadruple the length of this talk page by repeating it all here. I'm not trying to avoid answering your question. But there are some excellent answers to that question throughout the archives if you wish to read them. There also are many differences of opinion on that issue, so it's very complex. My main purpose in getting into this extended discussion with you here was to dispel the quite inaccurate charges you have made that somehow psychologists could have prevented these problems. That seriously clouded the real issues here. Thanks for you comments. Ward3001 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Perspective - Hope to Move Forward

I have been a standby observer who has enjoyed the discussion/debate that has occurred throughout this talk page. I am a layman with limited exposure to the Rorschach test, but am an inquisitive individual who will, if a topic interest me, seek additional knowledge via searches more often than not starting with Wikipedia. I assume this is relatively representative of the individuals who the community of psychologists throughout this talk page seem so intent on protecting for our own sake.

There is benefit to incorporating the images into the article. I do not see how the inclusion of the images on Wikipedia leads to negative effects. My premise is not that it is a situation of, “let’s do it because everyone else is.” More so it is the fact that these works are publicly available, were available prior to DocJames release and cannot be concealed ad infinitum. The professional psych community (majority or minority?) cannot make the assumption that these images would forever be protected, the issue was not if but when. There must be other primary tests to confirm or deny findings from the Rorschach test.

  • Note: I did not search the Rorschach test, prior to the release here, as such I cannot attest to their prior availability.

On an aside related to the test itself, will the Rorschach test be administered multiple times to the same patient, do multiple practitioners test the same patient to evaluate consistency in diagnosis, can a single patient be analyzed by a panel of practitioners?

Intuitively the initial exposure to this test would be the most effective and offer the greatest insight – yet I am not convinced by this. This cannot be a single application test (the answer to my above questions would greatly help my understanding here). Throughout prior discussion this clinical tool has been compared on multiple occasions by psych practitioners to the SAT and other similar tests; this is not a valid comparison for many reasons (the SAT is annually adjusted, past exams are provided, exam prep is provided, answer keys are given). I am not suggesting that similar material be provided for the Rorschach test, the element of practitioner expertise and the complex method of evaluation make this impossible. The discussion of the methodology of evaluation also follows intuition – the practitioner does not simply evaluate your response but also analyzes your behavior, this is expected and its discussion in the article is beneficial. I find little dispute here with the inclusion of these two elements.

Discussion of whether all of the images should be included vs. some and the level of detail regarding evaluation techniques should be further discussed.

I would like to emphasize this is my first post on Wikipedia and as such I am not exceptionally familiar with all of the policies, thus please bear with me for errors in my analysis. It is my impression that Wikipedia does not provide “How to Articles” and as such the discussion of the images, methodology et al. should be limited to macro level. From this perspective I find the Most Common Interpretations to be useless and un-encyclopedic in nature adding little value to the article itself.


With regard to DocJames, the act is done (bold?) and cannot be reversed, the associated dispute regarding this editor (writ. Ego trip) adds no value to the article and should be limited in nature.

The conversation on this talk page must be re-aligned to the article whereby a reputable article discussing the Rorschach test, its application and validity can be discussed. Possibly we should define non-starters, goals and attempt to incorporate new perspectives. Thank-you I understand that all of the aforementioned points have been discussed ad nauseum I simply wanted to add this perspective in hopes that the article can move forward in a substantive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.238.69 (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, 209.x.x.x... Have you considered registering an account to help us move forward? Calm, rational voices are definitely helpful here. –xenotalk 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Vol 89(Suppl1), 2007, S124-S130.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test&oldid=306279770"