Talk:Rorschach test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rorschach test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Impact of Wikipedia publication[edit]

Several years after the event - has there been any evidence of a negative or positive impact? (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen any. How would one measure this and be confident in attributing the effect to this article? Do the rates of psychometric test use by public bodies ever get published? If responses from individual test subjects have been skewed by pre-exposure, how could this ever be measured? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If one assumes that the usefulness of the blots is in part merely that they are a standard set of images (which have no cultural baggage) allowing the analyst to compare and contrast different types of perception, personality, and mental activity (and making use of what is found through the whole interaction and not just the test itself) - was there a change in responses between responses before and after the images appeared on Wikipedia? And how widely available were 'the images' before Wikipedia provided them (which may affect the validity of the anti-WP claims). (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A good question. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
'Some academic/statistical researcher who knows about such things' who is monitoring this page could probably do a metastudy or other research taking reports from 'shortly before the WP reveal', 'a few weeks afterwards' (when there was much discussion) and 'now' (when the issue has faded into the background). 'They' will get the credit of a scholarly article and WPians get informed - a win-win situation. :)
'The whole context' will have to be considered - to take a simplistic example someone who sees a wolf's head in the first image will be 'saying' something different if they live in environments with or without real wolves. (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I admire your optimism. But academic studies are not timed to coincide with changes to the visibility of images in Wikipedia articles. And I'm really not sure how "the whole context" would be adequately controlled for in a scientific study such as the one you're hoping for; people's real experiences are just random events that can be expected to have no statistical influence. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Most people can see the convenient aspects of having a standard set of images, and that the responses will be interpreted in the context of a wider process (and how many people looking at the images on the WP page do actually rotate them to see what their brain now comes up with - probably more now that it has been suggested): and the analysts' previous experience/knowledge.
One of the aspects of WP for professionals is perhaps to see 'what interests, puzzles or is (mis)interpreted by the people using WP sufficiently interested to post to the talk page - and also to see what is not covered (which is also useful for those looking for ideas for theses and books to write). So the question is now a challenge to anyone looking for a subject of statistical and metadata analysis. (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)



I am in a clinical psychology graduate course and want to add information to the page. Under the "Uses" section I wanted to expand on the information where the test could be used but it is semi-protected. Can I gain access to add this information with sources? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompkeh (talkcontribs) 03:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thompkeh .Take a look at Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIRM - that should explain things. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. don't forget to sign your posts here with four tildes like this: ~~~~