Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14



Disclose of the text is discussed on a subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

or even test disclosure
Where is the subpage (and what happened to my question)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The subpage is here and this is were you question has been move: Talk:Rorschach_test/disclosure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you think, at this late stage, discussion should move back to the talk page? The subpage may have outlived its usefulness. –xenotalk 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not know what having further discussion regarding images here will add. I think having this discussion on a subpage decreases the amount of discussion. If ideas to improve the page occur it will be more obvious with how things are currently arranged.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. –xenotalk 19:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Decision

Trying to get the attention of someone who'd know. Maybe they'd be more likely to see it here than on the subpage...

I assume there was some sort of official decision to keep the images and disclosed information on the Rorschach page. Can a link to the decision be made sticky somehow? Probably on this page and not the subpage? I'd like to see where it actually happened.

Once such information is posted, feel free to delete this text entirely instead of moving it to the subpage. Crcarlin (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

For the images, see the links I just added to the above box with the exclamation point icon. I don't know which archived discussion addressed the "common responses" info. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. –xenotalk 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rorschach spelling corrected

considering all of this controversy, how was it that this name was misspelled so many times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rberlow (talkcontribs) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pop up book

I am very displeased to see hidden text in the article. I thought the issue had been put firmly to bed quite a while ago. Garycompugeek (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What hidden text are you referring to? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"This section requires expansion." Garycompugeek (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Er, the only "hidden text" I can find are some HTML comments suggesting how the sections might be improved; I can find no hidden article-text-proper. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol, no, "This section requires expansion" means that the section ought to be made longer— It has nothing to do with hidden text. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple Syllogism

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think simple syllogism (If A and B, therefore C) is an accepted standard of logic for use in Wikipedia. According to WP:SYN

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Since the Canadians have displayed this logic in an published statement about the topic of this article. So I feel no remorse in applying the same logic here. As follows: If a) the Canadian, British, and American Psychological Association believe that disclosure of psychological test materials compromises that test's utility, and b) the Rorschach test is a psychological test, therefore c) they believe that disclosure of the Rorschach test will compromise the test's utility. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian statement says: “The CPA’s concern is not with the publication of the cards and responses to the Rorschach test per se, for which there is there is some controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with the larger issue of the publication and dissemination of psychological test content”. So simple logic says that some experts think some experts believe that disclosure of the Rorschach test is beneficial, and some think it is harmful. Roger (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well no: simple logic says that some experts doubt that it is harmful. Simple logic would not find any experts finding it beneficial. But the simple logic is made moot by the larger point of what you quoted: the CPA has a problem with ALL publication of test content, including the Rorschach materials. The CPA statement is firm there. Crcarlin (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the CPA does not say that. The article quotes the CPA statement accurately. Roger (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring specifically to your quote, which I will reproduce here to make certain we are on the same page: “The CPA’s concern is not with the publication of the cards and responses to the Rorschach test per se, for which there is there is some controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with the larger issue of the publication and dissemination of psychological test content.”
In other words, the CPA is concerned with the dissemination of psychological test content including but not limited to (that's what the "not per se, but" clause means) the Rorschach. The term "larger issue" only emphasizes that they are concerned with all testing material including the Rorschach. If they were not concerned with distribution of Rorschach materials they would have made the statement very differently. Crcarlin (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The article includes that quote from the CPA statement. I do not think that the reader needs you are me to interpret it. Roger (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Roger Schlafly on this. His version of the article accords with the text of the source used, and your "syllogism" does not - notwithstanding the fact that it's been in the article for a while. Moreover, since the source used is explicitly a response to the publication of the test cards in this article, its meaning is very plain. The CPA does seem to be reserving the right to object on other grounds, but that shouldn't be given priority over their plain statement as quoted above. Gavia immer (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that the CPA does not care about the Rorschach images one way or the other. It just doesn't want WP to publish all the other tests that the CPA does care about. For this article, it is better to just quote the CPA. I previously paraphrased it, and someone reverted it claiming that it was original research. It is not. I am just using what the CPA said. Roger (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that the CPA does, indeed, care about the Rorschach images. The opening sentence of the statement says that our actions has "significant implications for the assessment of psychological problems and disorders." It ends the statement saying that our actions at Wikipedia, -- "Making the questions and answers to psychological tests publicly available -- compromises psychologists’ abilities to assess the learning problem of a student, the memory problem of an older adult or the depression experienced by a teenager." The statement implicates Wikipedia both by name and by action. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you simply want to say "I didn't hear that" in response to any evidence against your beliefs. Nobody else is required to join you in this. Nor are we required to pretend that consensus doesn't exit simply because you disagree with the consensus. Gavia immer (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You're guilty of the same, though. The entire message of the article is that these tests materials are not to be published, period, but you're not hearing that, instead pointing to a single sentence which simply refuses to single out publication of the Rorschach materials as a particular problem. You're picking a tree and ignoring the forest. Crcarlin (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The article quotes the CPA directly. What more could you want? Are you claiming that those quotes do not accurately reflect the CPA beliefs? The CPA statement is very carefully worded, and I can only assume that they meant what they said. Roger (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It is against Wikipedia policy to use their statement "in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source." (see WP:NOR) The intent of the CPA statement is clear. I know the temptation is great to try to extract what you want to hear out of a source, but this is against Wikipedia Policy.
You seem to be waiting for me to acknowledge the existence of "controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts." I can do that. I have done that. I hope that allays your concern about my ability to read a source. But what I can't do is extrapolate from this that some experts see a "benefit" to publishing the images, or to say that "It appears to me that the CPA does not care about the Rorschach images one way or the other." as you did. That would be misrepresenting the source and its remarkably similar to a discussion you had with Ward back in 2 August 2009 concerning the statement made by the American Psychological Association on the disclosure of test data. [1] You have a funny way of turning an argument around and standing it on its head. Very amusing. Thank you. However, the CPA has earned their right to express their concerns. It's best we get out of the way and let them have their say, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The article does let the CPA have its say. It quotes the CPA. Your complaint is about my comments on this Talk page, and not about the article. I agree that the intent of the CPA statement is clear. Roger (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As the interpretations of the test will change over time to incorporate changing socio-cultural-other factors, 'images on Wikipedia' will be another such component that will affect interepretations. More arguments than 'psychoanalysts good, keeping images non-visible, WP bad for having them (when elsewhere available) are required: otherwise casual passers-by will lean towards this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Ink Blots

We have created a special subpage to deal with the above conversations. Would someone be so kind as to move it back there? Yes a group of professionally strongly believe info regarding psychological test should be removed from Wikipedia. We all hear you yet most of us disagree.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful--there are two additional things going on here. The RfC probably deserves to be on the talk frontpage, and my question of what to do about the non-free content and formatting is not simply about removing for the sake of removing. Crcarlin (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection of test items

I think our readers will want to know the reason why some people wish the test items to be protected, and I couldn't find where we did that. Here's an edit I propose for the section entitle Protection of Test Items. It also relocates discussion about copyright and public domain, putting it here where it belongs. Thus putting both arguments side by side. I welcome comments. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Psychologists object to the publication of psychological test images and popular answers because of concerns about priming (influencing) patient responses. The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that, "Publishing the questions and answers to any psychological test compromises its usefulness" and calls for "keeping psychological tests out of the public domain." [2]

However, from a legal standpoint, Rorschach test images are, in fact, in the public domain, and have been so for many years. They have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland since at least 1992 (70 years after the author's death, or 50 years after the cut-off date of 1942), according to Swiss copyright law.[1][2] They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law:[3][4] all works published before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain.[5]

This means that the images may be used by anyone for any purpose. Outlines of the ten official inkblots were first made publicly available by William Poundstone in his 1983 book Big Secrets, which also described the method of administering the test.

We already have a section covering the issue: Rorschach_test#Protection_of_test_items_and_ethics --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, we do have the beginnings of such a section. However, the section doesn't say the basic things that I propose. It doesn't answer the question, "Why would anyone want to protect the images?" Neither does it explain the fact that the images are in the public domain. These are the two sides of the conflict, stated in a neutral voice. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree that reasons should be spelled out, although much of what you propose is already provided in the existing section, albeit in a different order. You have some useful references and I agree that that The Canadian Psychological Association and quote should be included. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a useful addition. –xenotalk 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I would make it the real-world implications much more clear, showing that this isn't just an ideological fight or a theoretical disagreement. The Canadian statement is great from a principle point of view, but besides words of the official policy, potential influencing of examinees casts doubt on results, making the test less useful to patients seeking psychological help and to other cases where the mental stability of a person needs to be proven.
Copyright issues are all well and good, but it seems like the real effects on real people deserve more coverage than legal quibbling.Crcarlin (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You will have to document those real effects on real people, because not even the Canadians say that there are any harmful effects to publishing the inkblots. Roger (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
But the Canadians do say that publishing psychological tests compromises patient care. And they said so in a document responding specifically to our article. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please provide us quotes and links to these documents? We are also up here in the north not one group with a single opinion :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
[3]xenotalk 17:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010)

Pursuant to the issues raised on the Talk:Rorschach_test/disclosure page, I am opening a wp:requests for comment and created a page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) Before our fellow Wikipedians begin commenting, I wanted to be sure that I've gleaned as much as possible from this talk page. I want everyone's perspective. Does anyone have anything they want to add? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing I'd add is the question of fair use standards. Wikipedia's stated policy is that not everything that's in public domain is sufficiently "free" for publication here: WP says that its bar for publication is higher than simply being legally publishable.
I saw a few occasions during previous discussion about the Rorschach where people have pointed out that psychological associations maintain ethical standards strictly against open publication of materials, and this might count as sufficient restriction to keep the material off of Wikipedia. I never saw the point hashed out, though. Crcarlin (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I've seen it hashed out. The result was not favorable to the position you're advocating. See the last paragraph of WP:NOTCENSORED. According to the last RfC, you're free to argue for some kind of restriction based on consensus of personal ethics. However, WP:NOTCENSORED says you cannot "compel" such a restriction. I've watched others try with poor results. I tried, too. We all provoked a knee-jerk revulsion from the free culture movement and Libre knowledge enthusiasts among us. I tried to get them, (mainly Chillum) to admit that his ethics were was also in line with this. (Who isn't concerned for the welfare of a depressed teenager or a schizophrenic adult?) However, he and others refused to engage in that way. They refused to admit their personal ethics into the discussion, and they did so with some pride. These automatons leave their ethics "at the door" so to speak, because they think the mission of Wikipedia is to simply speak truth, the full truth, in a pluralistic world. I understand this. Most of the time, they are correct to do so. However, these automatons take this agenda too far, applying their motes operandi even to this situation, where the ethics are so universally appealing. Good luck in trying to convince them of that, though. While I agree with you that that approach can and should be a factor in influencing our decision, there will be others who will react negatively to this, as a matter of habit. Thankfully, it's not a matter of policy, though. So feel free to try. You do that while I advocate for "the mission of Wikipedia." Perhaps both approaches can be factors influencing people to do the right thing. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The argument actually seems pretty strong to me. WP says that free content is defined here. That definition includes the availability of source material (Rorschach's data which created the cards is pretty inaccessible and the data behind the common responses absolutely is) and lack of restrictions on distribution (various psychological societies and companies providing material restrict distribution to qualified individuals). Thus, I'd say the images and responses are not free as per Wikipedia's definitions. It would take a real argument to show otherwise. Crcarlin (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No, more of a trivial argument really. Said restrictions don't apply to the public domain (or for that matter, anyone not a member of a psychologist society), and the cards are readily accessible in publicly available books (e.g. Big Secrets). The source material for the cards is irrelevant, only the cards themselves. And the responses are cited to publicly-available books. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The definition of free content adopted by Wikipedia (linked above) explicitly says that source data should be available for scientific results IN ADDITION to an unencumbered legal status. Mere availability of scientific results is not sufficient, as per Wikipedia policy. Both the cards themselves and the list of frequent responses are derived from research whose source data is not readily available (at least that I can find--psychologists aren't always super willing to post their datasets publicly).
Wikipedia and the freedomdefined guys are taking a philosophical position that public domain is not good enough for work to be considered truly free, so things like the non-free source data and the non-free attitude of the professional associations come into play.Crcarlin (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any claim being made that the cited portions are free. We cite copyrighted material throughout the encyclopedia. If your novel interpretation was adopted, then much of the Wikipedia would need to be deleted. –xenotalk 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The question of the images has been discussed thoroughly in the past here and via e-mail. See, for some examples, this, this, this and especially this and this.
In terms of the handling of text, text is indeed handled differently than other non-free content, I say this with some sense of the history of consensus here as material on text was added to that policy and guideline on my instigation to begin with. :) We absolutely rely on non-free content to verify material. Extensive quotations are forbidden in order to keep the use of individual works de minimis and to avoid rising to the level of substantial similarity. That said, if there are extensive quotations or unusably close paraphrases, these should be rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Surely there ought to be a section on the Rorschach test in popular culture that mentions Rorschach (comics). -- (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for a trivia section... just add a link under See also. Resolute 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any particular problem with a popular culture section? This certainly would not necessarily be a trivia section. The "use" of the inkbot images in popular culture is at the heart of the debate over whether or not they should be shown at all in this article. But I'd disagree with it in "See also" - does the character in the comic with a mask like an inkblot really have much to do with this test? I seem to recall that the comic used to be included as a redirect at the top of this article page, where Rorschach Test (band) now is. Not sure why it removed from there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The Rorschach test is derived from a parlor game thus mentions of its significance in history and popular culture is not trivial.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Un, which parlor game was that exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently something called "Blotto or Klecksographie" [4] (see also [5]). –xenotalk 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks. The ref in the article is to page 408 of Groth-Marnat (2003). I think this might deseve a little expansion in that para. Strictly speaking, I suppose, it was "popular culture preceding the invention of the test"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to Snellen chart

Dr. James Heilman, a Canadian emergency room physician involved in the debate, compared it to the publication of the eye test chart: though people are likewise free to memorize the eye chart before an eye test, its general usefulness as a diagnostic tool for eyesight has not diminished.

This statement is both original research (see WP:NOR) and synthesis (see WP:SYN. I'm flagging it as an unsourced reference. The statement is supported (referenced) by the New York Times. However, this is a "circular reference" because the New York Times is simply quoting Dr. Heilman, a Wikipedia editor active in this talk page. We have rules about how statements should migrate from the talk page to the article. Getting quoted by a journalist doesn't seem to be one of them. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly original research as it is referenced to the NYTs and attributed to a physician. It is thus obviously this physicians opinion. But of course I have a COI so will leave this to others to decide.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention: seriously? That people might memorize the chart doesn't harm its use as a diagnostic? At all? Crcarlin (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The chart is freely available on Wikipedia for people to memorize. Yet almost no one can be bothered.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, so the key is whether or not people can be bothered, not whether or not it's available. And there's the big breakdown in the comparison between the two: failing an eye exam won't get you declared insane (forgive the slight hyperbole). Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
...though passing it after studying it might let you drive a vehicle while legally blind. –xenotalk 17:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be an entirely specious argument. The quoted passage is a fair summary of a published reliable source. For Wikipedia users involved in editing this page to decide to overrule a reliable source because they disagree with its content is a big red flag for original research. The OR tag needs to go, or we need a serious citation of Wikipedia policy that rules out using this piece of sourced information. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:CIRCULAR Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONSENSE. If we agreed with your intepretation of that policy-section, then it would be impossible to write about events that occurred on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The NYT article also states: ".. James Heilman, an emergency-room doctor from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, posted images of all 10 plates to the bottom of the article about the test, along with what research had found to be the most popular responses for each." Is this factually correct? I'm not sure that Doc James would claim the credit for all that exactly. In fact, I think he may have made a comment about that at the time. Doc? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I attempted to correct the NYTs but by that point the most common responses had already been attributed to me. I did link the ten plates from Wikimedia Common however did not ever upload them to the internet. The stuff in the above box however is true. I have compared this issue to the eye chart.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that we have placed your words immediately following a quote from a psychological publishing company saying it's "unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia" to have published the images. It's the context that I'm worried about. We seem to be raising you up to a position as an expert on the harm resulting from our actions. Are we right to do so? Are you an expert in this matter? Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It is still not original research as it is published in the NYTs. Please stop being disruptive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the d-word. D for debate? I tend to agree with DanglingDiagnosis about the context for that paragraph. But do you still think, Doc, that it's a question of "memorizing" something that's the non-problem here? If you changed your mind would we have to wait for your NYT follow-up interview before we could remove this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes debate is always good. This page has certainly seen alot. @ Martin I do not completely understand the question you are asking. Could you clarify.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) ".. people are likewise free to memorize the eye chart .." - is this (still) how you see the problem of Rorschach pre-exposure? (2) your opinion regarding pre-exposure has now been very publicly aired by NYT. So public that it found its way back to here, which some editors see as a kind of circularity. But if, in the future, you changed your opinion, presumably Wikipedia would have to rely solely on your personal contribution to show this, i.e. NYT might not be as interested in your opinion next time around? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not add the line about my opinion. It was my opinion at that point in time and was notable thus ended up in the NYTs. If my opinion was to change yes it is likely if would be none notable until of course my book comes out on this topic :-) at which point it may be notable again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
So there are at least two of us who are concerned about publishing your opinion on our article page. I think this is a valid debate, which was my intent in flagging it. I think tour opinion was notable to the NY Times because it motivated you to post the images on Wikipedia. It was your actions that made your opinion notable to the NYT. Your opinion, by itself, was not noteworthy. Now, should your opinion ever be published in a publication subject to editorial review, that would be noteworthy. Until such time, I consider it original research. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As long as people here are complaining about the inkblots, it seems appropriate to include in the article a reason for including them. The James quote helps explain it. Roger (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, it may help to explain what Doc thinks about the images, but it doesn't really explain why they should be here. The argument that "the Rorschach inkblots are like the Snellen Chart" is not a very convincing one. And where is any counter-balancing argument? Or was Doc simply using the eye chart as an analogy? I asked Doc above to explain his position further, but he has yet to do so. Until he explains his argument more fully, and before a counter-argument is added, the main reason why Doc appears in the article at all appears to be that he was reported (actually mis-reported?) by NYT. AND the context in the article suggests that he's an expert on this subject, which he agrees he's not. Doesn't seem wholly satisfactory. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has 7 paragraphs giving the views of various authorities who are on the side that disagrees with Doc James. Their opinions seem to be overrepresented already. If they wanted to address the Snellen Chart analogy, then we could consider posting their argument. But the article already describes their arguments as they chose to make them. Roger (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Where is any counter-argument to a comparison with the Snellen Chart? Those other editors made their arguments before the addition of Doc and his quote? Those other editors didn't get reported by the NYT? Does reporting by NYT make an argument more noteworthy, or more important? Maybe the argument should be fully examined here on this talk page before it gets added, as you seem to suggest? But still awaiting Doc's response ... Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am involved with the Rorschach Ink block controversy and thus an expert on this subject matter. The comparison to the eye chart is excellent IMO as just as much or more harm could come from us having it here on Wikipedia yet no one argues vehemently for its removal. If as was mentioned people were to memorize the eye chart and get driving licenses harm could come of it. I still do not support its removal or creating a fake one for Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the Rorschach Test and have never claimed to be. And I would politely suggest that you Doc, even though you are a medical practitioner, are not either. Even being reported and quoted by the NYT cannot make one an expert. That aside, however, let's see if I understand you correctly. For the Snellen chart you think there is a danger (even for your Dad?) but the practitioners say there is no danger and you listen to their advice. But for the Rorschach, you think there is no danger, even though the practitioners say there is, and you refuse to listen, because you know better. Is that right? Also, which test do you think it might be easier to fake or which easier to be contaminated by pre-exposure - the Snellen, where there are many variants of test materals. or the Rorschach where there is only one set of blots? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think the comparison with Snellen charts (there is more than one) and the arguments it has sparked show the comparison is a fair one. There is no one Snellen chart to study--the familiar E F P one is just the most common one and only one of the many tools a doctor can use. The same is true of the Rorschach Ink "test"; sure the picture have been out there for over 30 freaking years but how the interpretations are read is largely unknown.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that, unlike the Rorschach inkblots, Snellen charts can be constructed and employed very easily and quickly. The main requirement would seem to be knowledge of the Sloan letters. Other non-standard charts might even be possible, taking account of the subject’s native language alphabet. But they are not culture free - don’t forget, for example, that the letters J, K, Q, V, X and Z do not appear in the Welsh alphabet, But the Snellen chart is not a test of personality – the responses do not need to be validated against any given subject population, For these reasons I don’t see why any “novel Snellen chart” (if this is possible) could not be used in the wikipedia article. (If here is some risk of danger attached, as Doc James argues, then that is what should be done – as a sensible precautionary measure.) Furthermore, however, no “interpretation” of responses is required, but simply counting up correct and incorrect answers and calculating the ratio. There is no argument over which responses are correct and which incorrect.
The most fundamental difference is with the issue of pre-exposure – the professionals who use the Snellen charts do not argue that there is any problem with pre-exposure. The professionals who use the Rorschach inkblots tell us that there is. We are not experts on either of these tests simply because we argue about them here. Yes, the Snellen charts are sort of similar to the Rorschach inkblots. The Snellen charts might even be useful in an analogy. But when it comes to arguments over the actual use of these tests, didn’t we really ought to listen to the real experts? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The subject matter I am saying I know well is "the Rorschach Ink blot controversy" I have not claimed to be an expert regarding the "Rorschach Ink blot". Second I NEVER said that harm COULD not result from the Snellen chart or from these Ink blots. Harm COULD result from Wikipedia hosting either one however we do not have evidence that harm results. Harm could potentially result from any of the content that we host. But we are an encyclopedia and if we were to assume harm in the absence of evidence or even credible argument Wikipedia would not exist. I have requested that "evidence be provided" many times in the past to substantiate claims of harm made by others and am still waiting for this evidence. I have searched the literature myself and have been unable to find it.
We do not listen blindly to "experts" anymore. Evidence based medicine follows the adage "Show me the evidence". I will repeat "Show me the evidence". Otherwise please archive this discussion as something we have discussed dozens of times before.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
And I have argued many times in the past that it is impossible to collect this evidence. All we have to go on is professional advice. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a better analogy would be to voodoo dolls, astrological charts, homeopathic pills, hypnotic trance procedures, and lie detectors. The self-appointed experts who practice these things do not like their secrets being revealed on WP, because their alleged effectiveness depends on keeping the subject in the dark about how bogus the practice is. Snellen charts have some objective validity, and that makes them a lot different from these inkblots. Roger (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I see. So are voodoo dolls, astrological charts, homeopathic pills and hypnotic trance procedures taken as seriously as the Rorschach by the American legal system? Not sure they are in the UK. I think the "jury is still out" on the polygraph (unless maybe the jury's been permanently retired)? But at least we seem to agree that the Snellen Charts and the inkblots are very different types of test. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes and we do have a research psychologist from Texas who said the Rorschach was only one step removed "from crystal balls and tea leaves" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you'd easily be able to find quite a few "research psychologists from Texas" who are fully prepared to rubbish psychometrics of all kinds, including the mainstream objective personality measures. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not ones backed up by statements in Psychology: a student's handbook (2000) by Bysenck, Michael W. Routledge pg 746, various court cases (Jones v Apfel (1997) US v Battle (2001)), The criminal mind: a writer's guide to forensic psychology (2002) by Katherine M. Ramsland pg 96, Psychological Science in the Courtroom: Consensus and Controversy by Jennifer L. Skeem, Kevin S. Douglas, Scott O. Lilienfeld (2009) Guilford Press Page 211, Clinical research in mental health: a practical guide by Gordon J. G. Asmundson, G. Ron Norton, Murray B. Stein SAGE pg, and many other sources. The fact is there are countless sources that the Rorschach test is totally useless for some of the things it is used to study or test for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Bruce, those seem to be perfectly reliable sources and so could be added to the article as appropriate (but however many others there are, surely they could be counted?). Your statement suggests that there are still some things that the Rorschach can properly measure. But what this has to do with the Snellen charts - unless you are simply saying “the eye chart is reliable but the Rorschach is not”? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC).
Well in one sense that is the difference. Anyone who looks at any of the Snellen charts (even the one used for illiterates) can agree on what the chart says--the same is not true of the Rorschach "test". A Star trek fan like my self might say Klingon battleship for card VI for example; now just how do you score that?!? Furthermore as Robert F. Joseph M. Masling's (2005) Scoring the Rorschach: Seven Validated Systems shows there is more than one way the Rorschach cards are used including methods dating back to the 1950's despite Lee Cronbach stating in 1959 "The test has repeatedly failed as a prediction of practical criteria. There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations." Ie some Rorschach systems still used in 2005 are invalid per standards given 50 years ago!--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Cronbach is certainly seen as a major figure in psychometrics. And I'm not sure he'd change his opinion if he spoke today. But his stance was very firmly entrenched in the quantitative/ statistical camp. I think it's a misguided to compare an objective test of visual acuity like the Snellen chart with a projective measure of personality like the Rorschach. People don't agree on what the inkblots show - that's the reason it was invented! Rather I think the acid test is whether or not the psychologists using the Rorschach can agree on what the variety of responses mean in relation to population norms of personality traits. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The American legal system is based on open disclosure of evidence. The more seriously this stuff is taken by the American legal system, the more reason there is to publish the details on WP. Roger (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
One would certainly expect open disclosure, especially when evidence may not be reliable because of contamination by external sources. Or are you saying that juries all need to brush up on their Rorschach knowledge by reading Wikipedia articles? Maybe they need to know the top ten responses in order to decide if the psychologist has interpreted his client's answers correctly? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The public domain info should be available to juries, as well as to the parties in the cases, the judges, the lawyers, and the interested public. Is it not for me to try to censor info that exposes the nature of this dubious evidence. Roger (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, Roger. But the question is this: because those who use the Snellen charts have not complained that there is any danger in showing an image of one chart, does this mean that those who use the Rorschach inkblots, who say that there may be a danger in showing images of all ten inkblots, are wrong? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The only danger is to their income streams if the public learns what lousy tests these are. Roger (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds almost vindictive towards a certain group of people. Harmful even. But why not just answer the question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out with Robert F. Joseph M. Masling's (2005) Scoring the Rorschach: Seven Validated Systems as a reference there is no one Rorschach test but rather a series of systems that use the Rorschach cards and form what I read in that book they are not comparative to each other. In other words you can NOT compare the results of someone that uses the Pripro scoring system to a specialist that uses the more commonly used Exner Scoring System and this book give seven alternatives to the Exner Scoring System that were still used at that time. The inherent problem with this should be obvious and has been seen by others:
"Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless." (Bartol, 1983).
"The only thing the inkblots do reveal is the secret world of the examiner who interprets them. These doctors are probably saying more about themselves than about the subjects." (Anastasi, 1982).
(Mclver II, William (1997) "Behind the Prison Walls" IPT Journal 9 (1/2)) gives the full references to these:
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing (Out of Print)(Paperback - 1989 Edition). New York: McMillen and Co., p. 582.
Bartol, C. R. (1983). Psychology and American Law (Hardcover). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
"Pseudo-scientific diagnosis makes use of diagnostic instruments or methods that suffer from principal defects or shortcomings, that are based on unscientific, erroneous or sometimes even preposterous presumptions. Some of them were once popular, but are not taken seriously any longer. Examples are the Szonditest, Koch’s Baumtest, the Pfister colour pyramid test, Lüsher’s Colour test, frenology. Others are incidental trials, one-day flies, or eccentric beliefs outside the mainstream (e.g. Penn colour system, naildiagnostics or the Figure Preference Test). Again others, just as ludicrous as the tests listed above, are still used widely. Examples are the Rorschach Inkblot test, Draw a Person (DAP) and other expression techniques, among which in particular graphology, still popular among others in Germany, Israel, France, Switzerland, and parts of the USA.
Time will not permit me to demonstrate the unscientific basis of these tests and projective techniques, and the reader has to be referred to the critical literature on these instruments (Jackson & Messick, 1967; Drenth & Sijtsma, 1990). But I may bring to the fore graphology as a prototype of the pseudo-scientific diagnostic methodology." (Drenth, Pieter J.D. (2003) in the "Growing Anti-intellectualism in Europe: A Menace to Science" part of the ALLEA (All European Academies) Annual Report 2003)--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, after his rant, Drenth himself advises us to stick to Jackson and Messick (1967) and Drenth and Sijtsma (1990). But do the different systems still agree amongst themselves as to which are the most common responses? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychological experts in divorce actions (2005) by Marc J. Ackerman, Andrew W. Kane Aspen Publishers - Page 487 also lam blasts the common misuses of Rorschach
"However, positive validity findings for the Rorschach, TAT, and human figure drawings have rarely been independently replicated (Lilienfeld et al., 2000)." Maddux, James E.; Barbara A. Winstead (2007) Psychopathology: foundations for a contemporary understanding Routledge - Page 112)
"the Rorschach, TAT and human figure drawings are useful only in very limited circumstances." (Griggs, Richard A. (2007) Scientific American Reader for Psychology: A Concise Introduction Worth Publishers Page 56)
The problem is not so much the Rorschach itself but the uses it is put to--uses unsupported by any scientific studies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a very important point. I guess some people might even use it as if it were some kind of objective Snellen Chart. (Divorce actions. Really?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

God, he [Heilman] is soooo right!! I mean there would be only a very few really crazy people would do such a thing!!! Who would want to test them anyway!!!

Maybe I should write a Wikipedia article on the failures of the Wikipedia community. Amid a huge success in so many fields, It is clear to me that in controversial issues that require building consensus. It is easy for naysayers to create enough disruption to make such consensus creation impossible. This issue being so close past the fringe, requires a bit of thought. Unlike the more obvious cases of clear vandalism, for which wikipedia authorities are effective. This is just past them, too risky.

This article is not important enough for a single person to put themselves through the necessary hardship to have a logical decision come from a Wikipedia authority. Authorities that are made from volunteers. So in effect there is this alternate reality created by a few disruptive people, compared to the world outside of Wikipedia editors, were this "consensus" is the best that can be had. I would encourage anyone who would like to bring some measure of reality and reason, to gather enough people (maybe a 100) so they can come in here at one time. Otherwise do not engage them at all, this free text discussion format simply does not work in this case. There are circular discussions here to no end. The archive did not get that big for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

While I look forward to your article on "the failures of the Wikipedia community", do you have anything to say about the comparison of the Rorschach test to the Snellen chart? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I said it right, just a crazy person would memorize the Snellen chart. So its OK?!! Isn't it? Snellen is not meant for such crazy people. And crazy people don't matter, just look at the accuracy of the Snellen chart.
Clearly the disruptive people who decided to make this a personal issue, just added a section to discuss an issue they already won. Maybe it is some kind of response to the top of the page that explains how the Rorschach is actually used. I love to assume good faith. Only that these disruptive people will not play by the rules. They are just enough of them to pretend they do, and subvert them as it may apply to the case. They know how to game the wikipedia, and they may even not be aware of what they are doing. Sure many uninformed may agree. But look at the jaywalking segment at jay leno, and that should give pause. While the fact that they are successful in wikipedia may give them comfort. Their comfort is just as artificial as this reality they they made for themselves. Maybe this is just a video game for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, one might try to memorise a Snellen Chart to help one keep a driving licence. I'm not sure that makes one "crazy." But there isn't just one Snellen Chart, or even just 10 - any combination of the Sloan letters will do. The answers are just pass or fail, not open to interpretation and classification. More crucially, however, it's a test of visual acuity, not of personality. Even psychopaths can have perfect vision.
I am quite prepared to discuss the relative influence of pre-exposure to the validity of tests in general, even Snellen Charts, and psychometric tests in particular. But the main problem I see with the inclusion of the quote at the top of this discussion is that Dr Heilman's notability arises solely from his participation in this article, not as an expert in any kind of psychological (or even optical) testing. I don't think Dr Heilman is crazy, just a little `short-sighted', perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Many people have twisted the meaning of what I have said. I have never said that it was good / ethically or that I approve of people cheating on eye tests. Just that we need to realize 1) some people will "cheat" no matter what 2) those people will sometimes need to accept the consequences of these actions 3) we do have some techniques to pick up those with conversion disorders. Now WRT the Rorschach test yes some people will cheat however Wikipedia does not change this once bit. Those who are willing to cheat in this manner are not people with severe depression at a subdiagnosistic level as some have suggested but people with personality disorders or just normal people having fun. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that the Wikipedia inkblots make it much easier to "cheat", whatever the motivation. But worse than that, I believe they also make it much easier for someones' "imitial reaction" to the blots to be compromised, largely unwittingly, when that person has no intention of cheating and has not even asked to see the inkblots. But my main issue in this discussion thread is that the Snellen Chart and the Rorschach are just too different for a valid comparison to be made. And that the NYT interviwee is not an espert in either of these respective fields. It might help if the text was changed to something like this: "Dr. James Heilman, a Canadian emergency room physician involved in the debate over the inclusion of the images in the Wikipedia article .." But I'd really like to see a separate reference to support the claim about `general usefulness as a diagnostic tool for eyesight not being diminished'. I don't believe that Dr. Heilman's opinion, whatever it is, is really notable enough to be reported here without any qualification. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article fairly represents the major views. Heilman's status is qualified. You may have your own opinion about whether WP contributes to deliberate or unintentional cheating, whether such cheating influences test scores, and whether such an influence is beneficial or harmful. I suspect that the influence is slight, and that it is overwhelmingly beneficial, to the extent that there is influence. But these things have to come from reliable sources. As far as I know, there is no evidence that there is any harm, and no argument that the harm outweighs the benefit. Roger (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I’d agree that the article “fairly represents the major views”. This seems to be what “consensus” means to WP. But the discussion here is about comparison with the Snellen Chart, in particular Dr. Heilman’s reported comment about this comparison. I’d agree that the interviewing and reporting by the NYT, of someone involved in discussing this WP article, is notable. But I don’t agree that this then qualifies Dr Heilman’s opinions on the Snellen Chart as being notable. The situation would be the same if the NYT had interviewed and reported me – I am simply not qualified in this area as an expert. But I also don’t agree that his reported opinion represents a “major view” in this debate, or even in this Talk Page. And it is certainly unsupported by any source. Additionally though, I wonder if you could explain why you see cheating in the Rorschach as “overwhelmingly beneficial”? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Not only is this a self-reference like Martinevans123 says. And if James Heilman argues he was not dismissive, his Snellen test analogy only gets to his point of the pseudo bart simpson defense: Everyone does it, so it doesn't matter. Given that identifing correct answers in the Snellen chart is dependent only on a common alphabet, concerned optometrists have an easy fix, make a new one. This is clearly not the case for the Rorschach. Again, this is an issue that optometrists would have the last word on. Analogy discarded.
The elephant in the room is the publication of the Rorschach test. And even more. That Dr Heilman argumentation of it publication relies on disruptive agents absent from this choatic discussion. This claimed “consensus” is as fragile as the 20 to 30 people that would suddenly come to Dr Heilman's rescue if he waivered in his belief and "status quo consensus" came into question. He does not have to play by any rules whatsoever, rules that anyone BUILDING a rational case does have to submit to. So Dr. Heilman, "chaos quo" is on your side and you won!! or maybe you did not. In any case this "status quo consensus" is artificial and only exists in a subwikipedia comunity. I'm just calling it what it is. But do not fret, this text will also be archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Scoring?

Schlafly posted a link to an "online scoring" website that's currently nonfunctional. As far as I'm aware this web program didn't do scoring for you--that is, it didn't take raw responses and turn them into results as suggested by the context. Rather, it was a tool to aid in scoring to improve on the paper formula sheets and tables that the scorer might have otherwise used.

Anyone have any information otherwise? If not, the mention doesn't belong where it was put, and probably is not sufficiently notable for the article at all. Crcarlin (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what it looked like in 2008: . It would probably be considered inappropriate for both a reference and an external link so remove away... –xenotalk 01:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's what I expected (why didn't I check the web archive myself?). The program is a specialized web calculator of use only to people with the extensive training needed to score the Rorschach by hand. It's like an engineer using a calculator to help design a bridge. Crcarlin (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Or possibly like a surveyor using a theodolite to more accurately measure how much that bridge has deformed from its original straight and strong composition? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not really the same. The theodolite is key to the process, actually making measurements. These calculators are mainly bookkeepers, helping the scorer keep his data straight as he works through his process. They can in no way replace the manual scoring and interpretation of the exam as context suggests and Roger incorrectly states elsewhere. Crcarlin (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I quite agree. My theodolite analogy is more appropriate to the paper and pencil administration of the test, i.e. the measuring process. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The test is commonly scored with computer programs, and I thought that the article should say so. I put in a better reference for scoring programs. Roger (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The test is commonly scored with computer programs in the same way that bridges are designed with four function calculators... who cares? It would be one thing if the programs actually did scoring or interpreting, spitting out analyses from the raw data, but they don't. They simply speed up some of the tasks involved in Rorschach analysis while helping to avoid mistakes. Crcarlin (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The program certainly does spit out analyses from the raw data. You can look at a sample output here. Roger (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
To continue the "an engineer uses a calculator to design a bridge" analogy, you've just pointed to the bridge as evidence that the calculator designed it on its own. In reality the report that you pointed to includes a whole lot of non-automatable work on the part of a human interpreter. Programs like RIAP help but they do not and cannot replace skilled human interpreters.
Look: Rorschach test analysis is extremely reliant on things humans can do but computers simply can't. For example, say the client sees a bird in a card. It makes a huge difference whether this bird was a monster, or food, or a character from TV, or a normal, every day bird. Computers can't read a transcript and judge context well enough to categorize this. Hell, it's sometimes hard for humans to do it--that's why the training for Rorschach analysts is so long and difficult.
So once again, you're pointing to tools to help format reports and look up data in support of an analyst, not programs that can do the analysis themselves. Crcarlin (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
RIAP 5 for Windows does look like a way of automating the process of interpretation. But, as with most other projective psychometric measures, what would be more surprising would be an accredited computer-based system for administering the test, i.e. allowing for remote testing without the need for face-to-face interview and paper amd pencil recording of responses. But this seems quite contrary to the general ethos of Rorschach and I think that the only examples provided in previous discussiona have been dubious Rorschach-lookalike web sites. I also note that Roger's link includes this passage: Occasionally, records will be “too good to be true,” by, for example, including all 13 Popular responses (compared to a range of 5 to 7 among nonpatients). Records that are unusual by virtue of an overabundance of common responses may reflect coaching or careful preparation and, thus, provide a clue to deception (faking good). I think this is the problem that, it is argued, an over-exposure to the images will possibly magnify. But I'm not sure how the effects of this problem would be affected, in turn, by an automated interpretation process. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
So are you opposed to having the article describing how computer programs are commonly used with the test? Roger (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for Martinevans123, but I am opposed to the article suggesting that computer programs can take the place of the trained interpreter, which seems to be the direction you're going, Roger. I don't think the computer programs should be mentioned at all simply because they're not noteworthy. If you really think they should be mentioned, it should be made clear that they're simply tools to help with calculations and formatting. Crcarlin (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I can speak for Martinevans123, and he's more concerned that "RIAP 5 for Windows" looks like a very quick and easy method for an attorney to convert raw Rorschach responses into a readable psychological report for a courtroom setting. Does that make it noteworthy? He's not sure. But then he's very cynical. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not what that program does any more than a five function calculator spits out the design for a bridge based on the length of the span. RIAP can't go from raw responses to a report as it can't tell whether a examinee seeing a dead bird is seeing a happy Christmas goose or a festering corpse. A trained human interpreter is required to do that. Crcarlin (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is good refs discussing the use of computer programs being used to interpret the Rorschach than yes we should discuss it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Rorschach and measure of perception

Can anyone explain why the Rorschach test has relevance to perception? There are more senses than just visual. -- (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What, just because it doesn't cover every type of perception it's not relevant? Is a history textbook not relevant to history because it doesn't contain every event that has ever happened?
The Rorschach test uses perception to make observations of an examinee. It's not a test of perception itself. Crcarlin (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's edit

I reverted BruceGrubb's edit from May 15th for two reasons. First, it was poorly worded... I'm not sure what he was trying to convey by "author" and "publisher." Second, it was poorly cited and the one citation it had was from the 50s. The Rorschach has come pretty far in the past half-century.

I appreciate BruceGrubb's contribution and am not trying to shut him down. I'd definitely encourage him to try to reword his edit with more (and more current) citations and try again.

Here's his original text:

Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming leaving them very subject to the author's style and the publisher to the quality of the instructions (such as was noted with one of Bohm's textbooks in the 1950s[6]) as well as clinic workers (which would include examiners) being encouraged to cut corners

(.. just for the record, could you sign your comment, Crcarlin? Not sure why it failed to autosign. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC))
Here is the original text I was trying to fix:

Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming to inexperienced examiners, who may cut corners as a result.[citation needed]

The Journal of personality assessment's review of the textbook in question notes problems with "uncommonly stiff and pedantic version of Bohm's free-flowing style" and "the publisher's unfortunate decision to cut corners and delete important material" To use terms from my own field of anthropology some authors writing styles are more suited to explanation rather than explication and when publishers change that style unintended results happen.
Right, but that's an ancient analysis of an even more ancient textbook :) Would you talk about the reliability of cars based on reliability problems documented based on the Model T?
It is even more problematic when in an effort to cut costs (ie cut corners) a publisher deletes important material on top of changing said style.
Sure the wording wasn't the best in the world but it is what I had to work with and this is the closet thing that actually used "cutting corners" in the text and it was certainly better than the no reference we originally had.
As far "The Rorschach has come pretty far in the past half-century" goes one only have to read Bornstein, Robert F. Joseph M. Masling (2005) Scoring the Rorschach: Seven Validated Systems Lawrence Erlbaum Associates to watch that idea do a major crash and burn. There is no "The Rorschach" but rather several methods of using the cards and some of them such as Klopfer's Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale pg 22-46 and Masling, Raie, and Blondhein's 1967 ROD scale (pg 114-135) are insanely old. Remember in 1959 some 8 years after the reference paper by Klopfer Lee Cronbach himself stated "There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations" a opinion echoed over the years by Reber, Dawes, and in the cases of Jones v Apfel (1997) and US v Battle (2001), and again with Drenth, Pieter J.D. (2003) (who compared Rorschach tests to Phrenology).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
But then that's painting with a mile-wide brush. Some people choose to use ancient, unvalidated, undeveloped, unsupportable techniques, and legitimate psychologists rightfully reject these people. But it's not really fair to lump the legitimate uses of the Rorschach exam in with those illegitimate uses without a huge clarification. Maybe we can word this better. Crcarlin (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There's another issue with the edit: "extremely time consuming" does not imply "subject to author's style" as the new text states. Time consuming does leave encouragement to cut corners, but it's more things like the precision required for the explanation that leave author's style as a factor.

I'd like to work on the working for this section tonight, if I remember and have a chance. Crcarlin (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments about the ink blots

Many citation here, don't follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability the right way. You should cite the book, not only one of the autors surnames, the year and the page. Many information here is not verifiable and could be removed! EternamenteAprendiz (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Copyright Durations Wordwide - EU Copyright". Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. Retrieved 2009-08-26. [dead link]
  2. ^ "Copyrights – Terms of Protection". Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. Retrieved 2009-08-26. 
  3. ^ Carol Forsloff (30 July 2009). "Rorschach Personality Test: Did Wikipedia Leak a 'Cheat Sheet'". Digital Journal. 
  4. ^ Noam Cohen (28 July 2009). "Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That". New York Times. Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States. 
  5. ^ "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States". Cornell Copyright Information Center. 1 January 2009. 
  6. ^ (1958) Journal of personality assessment Volumes 22-23; Page 462
I believe the surname/year/page in the Notes refers to a book that is detailed in the "References". –xenotalk 20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rorschach reliability with exposure to internet-based images and information

See a possibly relevant study/source provided on the disclosure subpage by EternamenteAprendiz (talk · contribs). –xenotalk 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Was this peer reviewed or published in a journal? I do not see it on pubmed. It involved 17 people thus a little early to claim "We have proved it" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Proved for that sample, apparently. The full paper is pay-for-view - $37 for a pdf download. I'd like to know what "variable FC" is. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
So much for academic integrity. Gigs (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am intrigued as to whether you are responding to my comment (about the proof? the cost? or the variable?) or to the whole study itself. And if so how? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That someone would conduct a supposed academic study with desired results just to win an argument on Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You are saying that Randall's thesis is a sham because it produced a result that supports one side of a Wikipedia argument. And if the result had been in the opposite direction, what would your reaction have been? Would replication cause you even greater consternation? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As a point of order, I don't even think that everyone who supports/supported the disclosure of Rorschach test data in the article necessarily rejects the claim that such disclosure affects test reliability. I would wager that even published, peer reviewed, replicated studies indicating this would likely not change the position of many of those who supported disclosure. It is interesting, though. –xenotalk 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

() I see absolutely no evidence that the study was a sham. If it was, then the burden is on you to provide (for example) the author's Wikipedia username? Granted, I have little or no training in the science, but it looks like a perfectly good study to me!
Although it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, I would assume that it was approved by the student's thesis adviser, correct? Counting the one cited above, there have now been at least two graduate theses that have addressed the question of whether prior knowledge of the Rorschach affects its validity:

I think the results of these studies were inconclusive, although tentatively, one of them suggests there is an effect and one of them suggests there isn't. Of course, minds far superior to my own have discussed, debated, argued, analyzed, and meta-analyzed the validity of the test itself. If the test is valid in test-naïve subjects, then the question of whether it is valid in subjects with prior knowledge of the test (or how the tester should account for this knowledge when interpreting the test) deserves further study. (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Whitney Randall study, I believe that "FC" is known colloquially as "colour emphasis". So the study suggests that prior study of the online materials led to subjects later placing more emphasis on colour in their descriptions. I don't know what implications this might have diagnostically. I'd very much like to know how exposure to the "on line materials" (i.e. this article) was controlled. And it would also be interesting to know what was the test-retest time interval. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the test-retest time interval was one week. The experimental subjects were, I think, given a printout of a version of the Wikipedia article immediately after the first time they took the test. Two comparisons were performed: a before-and-after comparison in the experimental group, and a comparison with a group of historical subjects who were used as a control. I do not know the direction of the change in emphasis on colors, only that the size of the change was statistically significant. (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the direction in change of FC is not described in the abstract. The abstract also says this: "Furthermore, X +% and Afr showed a significant reduction in temporal stability compared to Exner's sample. Zf, active movement, WSumC , and the egocentricity index also unexpectedly fell below the 0.85 correlation coefficient considered standard for demonstrating temporal stability." I think a Rorschach expert (or the author of the paper) might be needed to help us understand what that means. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that by "temporal stability," she means the tendency of results to remain the same between the "before" and "after" test administrations; thus, if the historical group had high "temporal stability," and her group had statistically-significantly lower "temporal stability," that would suggest that exposure to the Wikipedia article may affect the results. In the thesis itself (the first 24 pages are available for free, and the rest may be accessible from some university library computers), she said something to the effect that the variables that are temporally-stable in the historical control group may be "trait" variables; that is, those who conduct or interpret the test may believe them to reflect enduring personality characteristics (of the type that the test is supposed to test). I agree with you, though, that a Rorschach expert (or the author of the paper) is needed to explain the diagnostic significance of the particular variables. (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Any effect on colour emphasis seems particularly interesting given the debate that was had on these Talk pages over the exact shade of background to the images to be used in the article. But stability of variables which show "traits" might be much more significant. I wonder if subjects were asked if they had ever seen the images before, and if so, where. One assumes, of course, that all subjects used in this study (and indeed the other) were "normal" as far as population personality norms were concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Book Review?

Describing the academic text which is used as the basis for the Rorschach text as "densely written" and "couched in dry, scientific curiosity" hardly seems suprising or, furthermore, relevant. One might say the same of any other scientific text, which Psychodiagnostik certainly qualifies as. That detail is a piece of trivia at best, and an attempt to pass judgment on the method at worst. Deleting. (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


What's really frustrating about this whole bit, is the Heilman can come forward into the public eye with "answers" to a purported "test" and be discredited as easily as... well, there really ISN'T a parallel to any other field; mathematics textbooks are not discredited as valid "study tools" for an exam simply because they contain the Pythagorean Theorem. I know that I'll be torn apart for even suggesting this, but it is my heartfelt opinion that any "science" that demands absolute silence and cowardice on the part of its "administrators" is no "science" at all. Now, have at the "inferiority complex" and "persecution ideal" comments, you blackguards. I've seen a lot of bullshit on this fine site, but this is what ends my involvement with Wikipedia. I hope somebody deletes and salts the "Rorschach test" article so that academia can claim superiority over free knowledge once more. Orethrius (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the first step. Now salt it, you dipshits. Orethrius (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is really not acceptable to delete entire WP articles, regardeless of your feelings about them. Please do not do this again. Thank you.--TEHodson 05:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Neither is it really acceptable to completely IGNORE an article so representative of every bullshit "inclusionist VS deletionist" debate on this otherwise decent repository of information, that neither side can really be correct without violating one policy or another. Keep it or delete it, but stop bitching about it. Either it's outdated pseudoscience that should have practitioners' licences pulled under APA 2.07, or it's a valid testing methodology; either way, I genuinely worry about any academic who thinks that arguing over testing disclosures is more a valid way to spend their time than researching better, more accurate treatment methods for whatever patients they can earn. I'm beginning to understand why Wikipedia has credibility problems; when anonymous academics can shout down well-intentioned contributors until they're banned or depart (or both), something is fundamentally broken. I've seen enough these past few days, to where I no longer care. In short, blow it out yer ass. Orethrius (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Jesus, Hodson, I can't express how sorry I am about this... perhaps there's some humor in that my roomie clearly needs a psychologist after pulling this stunt? I don't suppose anyone can offer one, other than him? I don't know what else to say, except that such behavior is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE (he's reading this over my shoulder right now, and NO, I will NOT change one letter...)... What else can I do now? It's not like he's going to give me the password back in. Perhaps I can start over somehow? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on here. I'm not a psychiatrist or anything to do with the profession or the debate. I'm just an editor who has this article on her watchlist. All I can say is this is bizarre. Obviously we will keep reverting any deletion edits, but it would be nice if you could get this person to stop. I will assume you are not he, suffering from DID, perhaps? --TEHodson 06:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, no, I don't suffer from multiple personalities; I just have to deal with one other, who happens to be quite defective. I fixed my laptop password now, though, so he shouldn't be back for a bit. Hopefully, before he figures out what I did, I'll be able to get my password reset, and learn to stop using dictionary words. Sorry again for the trouble. (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

...WTF...WP:LITTLEBROTHER. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is so funny, Cobra. I just dealt with someone on a bunch of Buffy the Vampire Slayer pages who actually told me his little brother made the mess we were cleaning up. Livin' an' larnin' on Wikipedia.--TEHodson 07:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, you are free to believe what you want, although it is somewhat depressing to see cynicism over a distinctly humourous non-policy page win out. What happens on the rare occasion where someone actually is compromised by a troglodyte who leaves his password on a sticky note? I mean, if you have proof that I'm my roommate, then ban me. What harm is there in banning a non-contributing user when someone uses their account to marginally affect the Wiki? Then again, I have no control over your actions, so I suppose I should take some solace in that there is no refuge in chaos. Oh, well... Orethrius (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I responded to your message on my Talk page. I am assuming good faith. Don't be so defensive; no one's accusing you of anything.--TEHodson 08:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh sure he is, the implication of tossing up that article over any other is perfectly clear. However, can you really blame him for being suspicious of my explanation? If I were him, I don't know that I'd believe me, either. Just gotta step up for Brian and takes me lumps, I guess. Orethrius (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please lighten up!! It's okay, and he was just saying...some of us do have a sense of humor.
What's frustrating me is that I can't even see the fight your friend Brian was so upset about. I see a rational discussion. Am I missing something? (An interesting sidebar on the topic itself: when, years ago, I discussed the test with someone else, she didn't remember that there was any color on the cards--she insisted they were all black ink only. Of course, she was depressed at the time. But still, interesting. I thought the test was a blast, but then, I'm a visual artist, and tend to find adventure in just about everything.--TEHodson 09:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Oi, sorry, I must be confusing you even more with my inimitable typing style. I meant that I felt insulted by Cobra, not Brian; I'm upset with my roomie, sure, but I wouldn't really call it a "fight" per se. I don't know what "fight" Brian would be upset about, unless it had something to do with the plates... or something... a Doctor did something some people didn't like? So tell me, what else is new? XD Orethrius (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to put the image into the infobox

I have tried. Not sure if there is someone who can do it better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You should not have done that without consensus. That's misleading. That one image, especailly with those numbers slapped on top of it, IS NOT THE TEST. I hope some other editor can undo what you have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite understand this objection. The caption makes it clear this is only one of the images used in the test, and that the images are only one component of the test.
As a comparison, in bone marrow examination the same infobox currently uses an illustration showing only one possible aspect of that test, so far without wild accusations that this is "misleading".
Perhaps you should open a discussion on the talk page of Template:Diagnostic infobox/doc, to arrive at a consensus description of what kind of images should be considered appropriate in the infobox.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the nature of the objection either. There has been no substantive change, only a change of style. Compare before and after. In fact, looking back through the history, it looks like that same image with the same caption and the numbers has been there for over two years, and the image itself has been somewhere on the article for over four (give or take edit warring). RobinHood70 talk 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a change in format, not a change in content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a discussion at Template:Diagnostic infobox/doc would be useful. I think there is a danger of missing an important distinction between mind and matter, and also another one between the material to be tested and the method used to test it.
It’s easy to photograph bone-marrow and to show an image of it in an info-box – that’s the material that is being tested. But one can’t do that with a person’s mind. Furthermore, should the info box show the physical instruments used to carry out the test? Surely this is a little misleading, as it’s the interpretation of results that is the crucial part. But aside from the consistency of all diagnostic info boxes, what is currently being done with the info boxes at the other diagnostic psychological test articles? I’m all for consistency, but not at the expense of clarity. Since when did the Rorschach plates include numbers 1 to 3, in bright red, to show the "top most popular answers"?? This must be the new "WikiRorschach Test"?
The inclusion of images of psychological test materials has caused considerable controversy here in the past. It took a lot of effort to reach the consensus we had BEFORE any info box appeared. And now the editor who was the principal celebrated proponent of image inclusion gets to pop the image in the box, at the very top of the article? How convenient. Freudeggonfacebook (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC) sockpuppet
There was no material change - see the article 2 years ago today: [6]. –xenotalk 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way to make the text not centred? It looks off. –xenotalk 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
@xeno: A minor change to the template would allow us to pass through a CSS style. I would think that should do the trick. I'll give it a'll know it worked if the text is no longer centred. ;) RobinHood70 talk 20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I think that it may even be desirable to still use the previous 'overlay' thingee rather than the hardcoded image - if possible. –xenotalk 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, my template change was okay, except that I realized afterwards it won't work (because it's a span instead of a div, if that tells you anything). However, there's more than one way to skin a cat, so the text is now aligned left with the exception of the tags at the bottom. If there's others that think the "overlay thingee" would be a good idea, I'll have a look at that tomorrow. I have no idea whether that's possible or not, though I'd be surprised if we can't do it somehow...just maybe not very elegantly. RobinHood70 talk 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks =) –xenotalk 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

() Well, I had another look at it and hit another roadblock. I can get the template in now, but it gives an error. I played around with it, but didn't get anywhere. I can get us there by calling a sub-template, but in theory, that should never be called directly, so it's not a nice way to do it. I've asked other templaters to have a look at it, and either way, I'll give it another shot tomorrow. RobinHood70 talk 00:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've put a temporary solution in place for now. I may re-write the template itself or switch to a whole different one. I'll have to investigate options later. (Like when the database lag like isn't in the thousands. :)) RobinHood70 talk 19:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I think a rewrite of the diagnostic infobox to make it more standard to other infoboxes and flexible wouldn't be a bad idea. –xenotalk 21:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I meant Overlay, actually. At a glance, I suspect Diagnostic infobox would be much easier to change. Can you give examples of what would need changing? Feel free to take this to my talk page or WP:Requested templates (or its talk page...they seem to get used interchangeably), as it's probably getting a bit off-topic here. RobinHood70 talk 23:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Current revision looks great, thank you. Erm as regards diagnostic infobox, it should accept lowercase parameter names, and it seems like there might be other things that can be standardized compared to other infoboxes but beyond that I'm not too sure =) [Probably should be moved to 'Infobox diagnostic' as well]. –xenotalk 12:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 16 September 2011

fa:لکه_رورشاخ (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Its done. Heh, the robot added it the exact moment I tried to--Jac16888 Talk 10:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The cards and their descriptions.

The descriptions given to supplement the picture of each card are rather fanciful and, in my opinion, written in a fashion far too nonchalant and speculative for an encyclopaedia. First of all, the credibility of these tests is debatable. Secondly, the kind of assumptions made in these paragraphs are total generalisations - but more importantly, they're not sourced. In fact, there's only one or two sources scattered across the section. I feel it should be rewritten extensively, ideally adopting a more professional and suitably detached tone. At the most that section is, honestly, quite ridiculous. Peace and love. (by the way, this is User:Psychonavigation (for what it's worth), I'm just not logged in. (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a somewhat protracted dispute over the inclusion of both the images and their detailed descriptions. The main part of the problem was that the images and descriptions were seen as very accurate and thus possibly a source of invalidating the test scores of anyone who had read this article and later took the test. You may wish to have a look at the Talk Page archive to see how the dispute (that was anything but peace and love) progressed and what was the result. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images and Talk:Rorschach test/images. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions, in the Comments section for each card, which may be judged "fanciful", are clearly supported by two citations - Weiner (2003) and Weiner and Greene (2007). As the descriprions are not enclosed within quotation marks, one assumes that they must be paraphrases of the original texts. If not, then they may perhaps be in breach of copyright. Similarly, the Popular responses, are supported by three separate other citations. I do not personally see how these can be paraphrases, since they look like they might be exact copies (with exact percentages). Perhaps it is accepted that such data cannot be paraphrased. I believe that the previous consensus was that all of this material was not in breach of any copyright(s). It might still be possible to re-write this material, in "less fanciful" terms, but this seems to me to be very unlikely. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

The article does not need this section: definitely not for the Rorschach fictional character, who has his own article, and not for a tangential use of the Rorschach test as an analogy (why pick one of what must be thousands?) MartinPoulter (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the earlier debates here was on which of the other Rorschachs - the band or the comic character - deserved the disambiguation template at the top of the article. I'm not sure how that is fairly decided. As for Obama - how many psychological tests get mentioned in Presidential races? I thought that it was rather indicative of the wider use of the test in the USA. But who knows, perhaps Japanese politicians refer to it all the time. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you MartinPoulter for removing this text! Lova Falk talk 18:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I expect the last thing people want here is poltics. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The band is called Rorschach Test, while the fictional character is called Rorschach, so the disambiguation only needs to point to the former. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That's quite correct. But perhaps that band article might benefit from a disambiguation link back to here? And maybe the article for Hermann himself needs a pointer to his fictional comic namesake, as well as to this other bit of popular culture? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error - 4.3 Prevalance, Japan

"Shorlty" should be "shortly."
Yes check.svg Done - Thank you! I fixed this. Lova Falk talk 10:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Inkblot Test

The alternative description of the test as "or simply the inkblot test)" was removed with the edit summary "no". Is this not a popular, common and widespread name (as opposed to the proper, medical diagnostic name)? How many other inkblot tests are there? Surely examples of this use may be found, even in academic journals, e.g. this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with putting it back in. Lots of people don't know the name Rorschach and might wonder if the inkblot test is another test than the Rorschach inkblot test. Lova Falk talk 19:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error in the Description

In "In a national survey in the U.S., the Rorschach was ranked eighth among psychological tests used in outpatient mental health facilities." eighth should be height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elridion (talkcontribs) 12:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying us. However, eighth is correct. The ranking was at number eight. Lova Falk talk 13:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Article on the effect of Wikipedia on the Rorschach Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of image release

Takes place here Talk:Rorschach_test/disclosure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope that the recent ip can work out where their comments have gone. Or might ask if they can't. Martinevans123 (talk)

The Rorschach test in behavioral toxicology

[7] Is this study worthy of mention, for novelty alone? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean because of the fact that it was published in 1984? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I would argue that when a set of materials is used to produce a psychological test, or a when an author devises such a test, the name of that test becomes, in its entirety a proper noun, with upper-case letters for each word, e.g. Thematic Apperception Test, Holtzman Inkblot Test, Blacky Pictures Test etc., etc. "Rorschach test" thus seem to be incorrect. A quick sroll through the Notes and References in this article shows that, although we also see "Rorschach Inkblot Test", "Rorschach Personality Test" and "Rorschach Technique", we always see "Rorschach Test" instead of "Rorschach test". So I suggest a change of name for this article to one which better matches the scientific literature and general usage. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What the name should be if it uses the same naming conventions as other tests is original research. What Wikipedia cares about is what the reliable sources actually use. I don't think that the capitalized version is actually most common. I see a lot of "Rorschach inkblot test" and "Rorschach test" mentions out in the wild. You can't use the Notes and References section as a guide, because in almost every case where they are capitalized they are being used within a book or article title and thus are capitalized by virtue of being in that title (as can be seen when other words in the title are also capitalized). A search of Google scholar has a number of variations in title and capitalization, but there seem to be more instances of non-capitalized versions than capitalized ones, so I think the article title is fine as is. DreamGuy (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
First I respectfully disagree with your statement that using the same naming conventions as other tests would constitute originial research. We have a manual of style that sometimes diverts very much from capitalization in the sources. But if you want sources, what about The International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods (ISR) founded on September 13, 1952? On it says, under the heading "About Hermann Rorschach": "During the time since its inception, the Rorschach Test has grown in stature..." As you understand, I support changing the name. Lova Falk talk 07:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would have thought the originator of the test, ISR, ought to be the definitive source here. In it's simplest terms, this is a product brand name - we don't have articles named "Hershey's milk chocolate", or "Gordon's gin" or "Burger king". And what about the MeSH Descriptor Data linked in the info box: [8] - are we saying they are mistaken? I don't see why Rorschach Test (band) is more deserving of upper case letters than Rorschach test. They are both names.
Similarly,we have the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the 16PF Questionnaire and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I don't really see what is WP:OR about making article titles consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Martinevans123. Its really a very old brand name or trade name. 7&6=thirteen () 21:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It has now been three months since I raised this. Consensus seems to be to change. Any other comments? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No objection from this quarter. I rarely think this sort of thing is very important, as long as the redirects are in place. Rivertorch (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. How many would be needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
How many what? And why are we whispering? Rivertorch (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
.. because it's a subsidiary question? or maybe because everyone else is asleep.. How many redirects have to be in place? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I was cryptic. As long as Rorshach test redirects to Rorschach Test or vice versa, I don't think it's very important which is the actual title of the article. The capitalization in the title also has implications for the capitalization within the article's text, but I don't think that matters much either. In many of these discussions there's a valid argument for doing it either way, and whatever is decided has little effect on the information provided to our readers, as long as they have no trouble finding the article in the first place (via a redirect). Rivertorch (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Good job the band never did the test. Or maybe they did. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The band as in The Band? Well, there's always the "the or The" question for The Beatles. (Or should that be the Beatles? Don't remember how that gargantuan discussion ended, and don't much care.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
no, no, I meant that band, or was it maybe the other Band? or maybe even it was just a test of that cartoon character? gosh, am so confused... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. but you should take a look at Robbie Robertson's RIS score!

Attempted a manual move but was told "Article already exists" (presumably because of one or more existing redirects?) So have added a request move template below. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Neurology section

Based in a single primary source. I have not found any related reviews in pubmed. Brain+Rorschach only gives 8 refs, and none give much info on brain basis. I would eliminate the whole subsection.--Garrondo (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Or at least relocate - really not sure why it's located under "method". Perhaps it could go with all those post-1984 behavioral toxicology studies? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
IMO unless we find a secondary source relating RT and brain estructures it will be to give undue weight... There are many tests for which a brain basis has been found, this one is not really one of them. --Garrondo (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I have finally eliminated the section and moved it here so it is not lost in the history of the article in case anaybody finds a way of improving it.--Garrondo (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Research using card III have found that ‘‘unique responses’’ are found in people with larger amygdalas. The researchers note, "Since previous reports have indicated that unique responses were observed at higher frequency in the artistic population than in the non-artistic normal population, this positive correlation suggests that amygdalar enlargement in the normal population might be related to creative mental activity."[1]
Good idea. There may have been a replication in the intervening five years? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ Asari T, Konishi S, Jimura K, Chikazoe J, Nakamura N, Miyashita Y. (2010). Amygdalar enlargement associated with unique perception. Cortex. 46:94–99. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.08.001 PMID 18922517
A replication would not be a secondary source, and nevertheless I made a (quick) search in pubmed and did not find anything really relevant.--Garrondo (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. We'd need to see a mention in a meta-study or a review, at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rorschach testRorschach Test – Upper case letters for all words in the title of a psychometric test. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless the requester (or anyone else) can point to a specific guideline or manual of style entry that defines such a rule. "Rorschach test" is not the title of the test, in the manner that Star Wars is the title of a movie; it is merely a convenient moniker for a psychological test invented by a man named Rorschach. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Does Wikipedia have any policy on the format of names of psychometric tests? I'm not arguing that it does, nor even that it should. Did you read the other discussion on this page, above? No, actually it is the title of the test. And I'm not too bothered about how many Google hits you get either way. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move comments in a separate section

Do we get to know why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for change. Lack of a policy-based reason to change title. Lack of policy-based rebuttal to argument that change of title is original research. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Did you read the previous discussion on this Talk Page? Or does the process not suggest that you ever should? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I did read the previous discussion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you direct me to any policy that exists on the conventions for naming articles about psychometric tests? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:TITLE. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see tke words "psychometric test" there. But I'd argue that this is a proper noun. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That is the policy "that exists on the conventions for naming articles about psychometric tests". It's the policy on naming all articles. There is no specific policy on how to name psychometric tests. That's what known as policy creep. You may argue that it's a proper noun, but absent reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:IRS), that's original research and not allowed. Present your sources, get a consensus that the term "Rorschach Test" is a proper noun, and then the page will be moved. I would suggest a WP:RFC to attract the attention of outside users. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not advocating a policy on naming psychometric tests. You seem to think I am. The proper noun argument is not the only one, as you have seen above. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Present your sources, get a consensus, and then the page will be moved. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
So how many are required? Would you regard each of these as WP:RS? e.g.
  • "the Rorschach Test":[9],
  • "Rorschach®-Test": [10]
  • "MeSH Heading: Rorschach Test": [11]
Even, if it were not a proper noun, as well as a registered trade mark, I'm not sure why making the titles of articles on psychometric tests consistent across Wikipedia counts as WP:OR. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't care if it's capitalized or not (see WP:UNINVOLVED), but a quick search yields this, that, and the other, all of which seem more reliable than your three sources. Granted, there were others that used a capital T, but that just shows that you can't just cherry-pick sources that match your preference or you'll get skewed results. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Your apparent admission/ qualification is welcomed, at last. But why are my examples cherry-picked, but not yours? What are your estimated useage proportions? And what is your sample population? I think we ought to at least stick to R-Test vs R-test, don't you?. But you didn't yet answer my simple question. Shall we "cherry pick" another trademark or delicacy? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant to say that my 3 examples above were intentionally cherry-picked to play devil's advocate. I did not mean to imply that your examples were cherry-picked. As I said above, I don't care which option is decided upon. I think that thoughtful discussion amongst those that do care is the way to resolve these sorts of issues. The result everyone should be working towards is consensus. How about if I start a new section on this talk page for an WP:RFC, making sure to link to the previous discussions, and see if it attracts more attention from outside users? You'd, of course, be free to present your argument as you see fit. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That's very good of you and a fine suggestion. I'm having recurring difficulty here with the concept of "reliability". If the company that makes and markets the test (and still believes it "owns" the images) is not reliable, then I'm really not sure what is. (Or maybe that's just why nobody believes them?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that's one point you should bring up in the RfC below. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


Is there any reason to mentioning the country of one of the mentioned authors in the "the ten inkblots section"? Probably not... (A bit of UScentrism maybe?).--Garrondo (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rorschach was Swiss? But who is Dana? This one doesn't look very French? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Then why when talking about popular responses says "Beck:", "Piotrowski:", but "Dana (France)?:". Does not seem to make much sense anyway.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
How odd. I wonder what that means. I had assumed that this meant that Dana was reporting responses made by a sample tested in France, and that the other two authors do not reveal where their samples were tested. But the source, Dana (2000), is not available on-line and I do not have a copy to hand. I wonder if another editor has a copy available? A footnote about this, or a note added to the reference, might be useful I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but even if it is as you say, I do not think it is relevant unless 1-explained 2-Indicated for the other samples. It is probably to give excessive information, and I would simply eliminate it. Martinevans: have you noticed that you mark all your edits as minor? Is it a mistake or porpuseful?--Garrondo (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, Garrondo. I do tend to mark all my Talk Page edits as minor. It's á sad reflection of their general quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I would rather say that no edit at a talk page is minor... (unless it is reformatting), but that is irrelevant now. Any suggestions on the Dana issue? I would simply eliminate the France mention, but I wanted some approval first, since I was only "passing by" when I noticed it. --Garrondo (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather see the origins of the other two samples also given. But given that my personal preferences are not relevant, and that I still feel a damage-limiation exercise is in order, I am more than happy to agree with your proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to eliminate it, but when previewing I break the style of the table, but not sure why...--Garrondo (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can see exactly what you mean. I really don't know why. We need a table expert. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Article title

There has been previous discussion on whether the article name should be "Rorschach test" or "Rorschach Test". See Article name, Requested move, and Requested move comments in a separate section. I had closed the requested move discussion as not moved. This simply means there was no consensus to move the article. After discussion, it was agreed that opening an RfC to invite wider input would be the best way forward. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support move. As a trademarked term, it seems reasonable to properly capitalize it, as per MOS:TM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, mostly. If there is actually a "Rorschach Test" (note capital "t") trademark, then it might (or might not) be reasonable to reflect that. However, what I've seen so far is the ODE using a lowercase 't', Merriam-Webster doing this same, and the BBC following this. Our sister project Wiktionary also follows this convention. Even if it's found that an "official" (for some definition of that) version of the test uses the capitalized noun "Test" in their trademark, we should keep in mind that this article isn't really supposed to talk about a specific version or interpretation of the test, but instead to give an encyclopedic overview about all its historical variants of importance, as well as its current ones (the article, if I remember correctly, does state there are differing systems of interpretation). Also, note that other test articles using capitals are often for tests that are commonly referred to in their acronym form. The Rorschach test is sometimes called the Rorschach Inkblot Test or Rorschach inkblot test, but I'm not away for the form "RIT" being use. LjL (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I convince myself that "used like this at sites which use an appropriate warning" doesn't sound like you have an agenda even with this proposed move? What makes the warning "appropriate" and why does the fact that some sites that use "appropriate" warnings spell the test a given way mean we should spell it that way? It's a non sequitur at best. Aside from that, I'd like to remind people that this article isn't really about the "Rorschach®-Test" - as in, the specific flavor of the test that's endorsed by the Rorschach Society - but about the test and various ways of interpreting throughout its history. I note that the very page you linked starts out by saying:
"In 1921 the very first edition of the Rorschach® ink blot test, appearing under the name of Psychodiagnostik, was published by Ernst Birche"
So it uses two different alternative names for it, and notes that a different publisher was the original publisher. I'm pretty sure we're covering the Rorschach test as originally published (it would be funny if it were not, since the gist of the article, the images, and descriptions, are about historical versions).
To answer you point by point:
  1. The test publisher is not the only entity that has historically handled this test, and can't be considered a source for the test as discussed in this article, i.e. not just their specific versions
  2. "Rorschach" may be a brand name, but "Rorschach Test" likely isn't a brand name, considering that the publisher has filed for the former but not the latter as a registered trademark - that explains why they employ the "®" symbol before the word "test". My hypothesis is that they recognize that a "Rorschach test" is something not so specific, that can be administered in various ways and isn't necessarily 100% the same as... what? their method? Exner (who always uses the word "Rorschach" alone, never "Rorschach Test", if you check his books)?
  3. As I already mentioned, other articles often refer to tests that are commonly referred to with an acronym. In that case, it makes sense to capitalize each word in the acronym. Not all Wikipedia articles about tests use the capital, Tower of London test test doesn't (coincidentially, it doesn't mention an acronym for it, while the others I checked do). I note that one article you mention, Blacky Pictures Test, was actually moved by you from Blacky pictures, which seems questionable once one sees how rarely your chosen term has been used, and that the article didn't speak of a "Blacky Pictures Test" at all before you introduced that.
  4. Under some writing standards for English, headings actually have to have all words capitalized, so it's little surprise that they'd use "Rorschach Test". However, this is not the case for headings and titles on Wikipedia, as the Manual of Style outlines.
  5. Well, maybe the current source material spells it that way (I don't know - you only provided a book title, which normally has to be spelled with capitals as explained above), but older source material, at least, like the ones pictured at the Science Museum site, only refer to "Psychodiagnostics Plates" in the title, not to a "test" or "Test" at all.
  6. Other popular articles, a few academic papers like this, this, this and the very one you mentioned, only, as cited by a different site, and also textbooks like the one you mentioned, but as shown by Google Books instead of Amazon use a spelling without the initial capital. I must also stress again how usage in book titles isn't necessarily indicative of common usage (or Wikipedia customary title/heading usage). In any case, I guess we can both find books and articles that conform to our preferred spelling; all I know is that Google Books tells me the lowercase spelling is more common overall in books, which when accounting for titles and headings using initial capitals, means to me it must be overwhelmingly common.
  7. Actually the site that you mentioned uses lowercase spelling everywhere but in the page title and heading. The description given to Google for the site is "An online Rorschach test that can reveal things about you.". Another "online Rorschach test" (it isn't really one, but neither is uses lowercase including in the site's title.
  8. Again I have no idea what "sites which use an appropriate warning" have to bring to the table, aside from an agenda. In any case, the site you mentioned uses lowercase spelling everywhere but in the title, and it mentions it several times so we can be sure they meant it.
In conclusion, the examples you bring are mostly titles in title case (which Wikipedia does not use for article titles or heading), and/or have handy counter-examples. In many cases, the examples you cited actually use "test" and not "Test", except in titles and headings. LjL (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
General response: I don't know, why can't you convince yourself? I think the Rorschach Society ought to be seen as the primary source on this test, both in terms of its history and its current official publishing. I'm not sure how the original German title of Rorschach's book affects the discussion here. The article gives it a single word: [21]. But I think we have to limit ourselves to English language variants. But surely, this article should be covering all variants of the test, not just the one "originally published"? How does the flavour of the test affect it's commonly used name exactly? Is that a special Swiss-German flavour?
  1. I'd suggest that the current publisher ought to be seen as a "primary source". It's not just an historical thing, it exists here and now, it's a product that can be bought.
  2. Well, that's your hypothesis. Do you have a source which supports that claim?
  3. Maybe acronymic test names do lend themslves more easily to capitalisation. That's a separate discussion. Just because we don't have an acronym here, should not discount is from using the upper case letter. Yes, Blacky Pictures Test was moved by me, but with the full agreement of another editor. No-one objected. No one has objected since. If you think it's wrong, I think you should ask for a move of that article.
  4. The MeSH "prefered term" is still "Rorschach Test": [22]
  5. I don't see how ""Psychodiagnostics Plates" is relevant to this discussion.
  6. I dont see why Google should be regarded as being more definitive, or reliable, than Amazon. What is the percentage of book titles in the Google search database? Without that figure, I'm not sure how anyone could claim it's "overwhelming". What is the accuracy like when comparing 0.000002% with 0.000007%? Could we do a similar search which shows useage only with the body of academic journal articles? How reliable is that Google search, given that many sites wil be simple mirror sites of others? And why does the graph stop at the year 2000 (or start in 1800 for that matter)? I'd be interested to see the data since 2000.
  7. Everywhere? "Rorschach Test" = 2 examples, "Rorshach test" = 2 examples. It also refers to the "Inkblot Test".
  8. What's the hidden agenda exactly? I think that's a "responsible site" for giving a warning, contrasted with such sites as, which seems slightly more frivolous and irresponsible. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sure, it's one primary source (among others), and as per WP:PRIMARY, it should only be used with care, secondary sources being preferred. It's here and now, it can be bought, but it's only a subset of what this article discusses (which is, the test in all its incarnations and interpretation systems).
  2. You made the claim that the word pair "Rorschach Test" is a brand name, you are the one supposed to provide a source. If nothing else, I provided a primary source (the trademark registration office) that denies that "Rorschach Test" is not a registered trademark, even though "Rorschach" is. According to Wikipedia, « Brand is the "name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's product distinct from those of other sellers" ». I really don't think the name "Rorschach test" identifies the Rorschach Society's version of Rorschach as different from, say, the original Psychodiagnostics version, or the Exner interpretation system.
  3. Sure, just because we don't have an acronym here, that doesn't rule out the possibility of using capitals; it does make your point about "other articles doing it that way", however, moot.
  4. I thought "Medical Subject Headings" were, you know, headings, which was my entire point. It also says the "preferred term" for Digestive system neoplasm is Digestive System Neoplasm, but Wikipedia is not certainly not going to style it like that.
  5. Wait a minute... You: « Used this way in original source material, e.g: "Rorschach, H. (1927). Rorschach Test – Psychodiagnostic Plates. » Me: « older source material [...] only refer to "Psychodiagnostics Plates" in the title, not to a "test" or "Test" » You: « I don't see how ""Psychodiagnostics Plates" is relevant to this discussion. » Uh?! I mean, my point was I could show original source material doesn't use the word "test" with either capitalization, so the fact that there may be more recent source material currently using the word "Test" is a very weak hint.
  6. I don't know, but you didn't provide any data from Amazon for book contents. Google Books N-Grams don't only index titles, they the content of books. If Amazon can now do that too, I'd be interested in seeing the data. As to the book titles, I guess Google isn't more authoritative than Amazon, but neither is Amazon more authoritative than Google.
  7. It also refers to the "inkblot test", for that matter. Do you see a pattern? I mean a pattern like capitals being used in headings, lowercase being used elsewhere? FWIW, the site uses lowercase again at the About page, in the page body (as opposed to heading).
  8. Well, perhaps I'm wrong in not assuming good faith, but after the amount of time I had to spend on this article in 2009 to avoid having encyclopedic information suppressed... I think your agenda might likely involve 1) having a capital 'T' in this article so it's more directly linked to Hogrefe's version of the test 2) start introducing the idea that Hogrefe's view is the only relevant one 3) since their view is that the test data should be kept a secret, lobby again to have it removed from Wikipedia. I'll be glad if you prove me wrong. LjL (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
So sorry to take up so much of your time in 2009. I don't think you were a lone voice defending the article at that time. Neither was I the only editor disagreeing with the image placement. And yet now you suggest it's wrong of you to assume good faith on my part. If that's your own personal conspiracy theory, so be it. What kind of "proof" would that be exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What...? I never said I was a lone voice defending it (I certainly wasn't), neither that you were the only one disagreeing. I didn't suggest it's wrong of me to assume good faith, I said it may be wrong of me to not assume it. And who said anything about proof? You asked what I thought your agenda might be, I answered your question. Now I recommend we stick to a discussion that makes any sense. LjL (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You said "I'll be glad if you prove me wrong". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh that's right, sorry, I simply meant I look forward to realizing my idea that you have an agenda behind this turns out to be wrong. I wasn't actually requesting a proof from you, it was just an expression. LjL (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure if I had been clever enough to think up something as devious as that, I've have tried it many months ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Do not think it is really relevant: Right now so much text in a thing I find so unimportant is IMO simply a waste of efforts that could be used in improving the article. Big question is: is an interested reader going to find the article. Answer is: YES. Lets move on or we will appear next to startrek discussions on capitalization...--Garrondo (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: a slam-dunk by LjL, and Garrondo has a very good point. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Do not think it is really relevant: agree fulheartedly with Garrondo. Only one life, too little time as it is, better things to do than to read this long discussion about capital letters or not. Lova Falk talk 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your honest input. It's only one capital letter! lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Happy with it uncapatalized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "test" generally appears uncapitalized in reliable sources, take a look at recent (since 2009) Google Scholar search results, look at references to the test in running prose (As Opposed To Capitalized Titles) and it generally appears as "Rorschach test". The MeSH term being capitalized is a total red herring, many of them are capitalized needlessly, look at the MeSH search results for colon cancer for example Zad68 03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, as per users Ljl, Garrondo and Zad68. Talk about a storm in a "T-cup"! ;-) yoyo (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection, category removal...?

The latest edit to the article removed it from , as the edit summary states, and also added a semi-protection template. I don't believe that was there previously... is there a rationale? LjL (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

SUPPORT Test protection.

I support that the images and common answers of the test are removed from Wikipedia. The method is widely used in healthcare and remembering the images and common answers reduces the potential of the test. And so it makes your treatment harder. I think it is similar if you memorize some memory tests and then go to dementia assessment.

The thing is

... the information on 'common responnses is out there' whether or not it appears on WP. To me Card 1 #always# invokes "wolf's head" and 4 'biker (possibly waiting for one to cross the road)'.

As information on the images was always likely to shit 'through the internet tubes' either a new or extended set of images should bave been developed or the effect of such feed-through be incorporated into the use of the images. (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be affiliated with or have any connection with the source of those plates, as at the very least cards I, II, V and VI are not Rorschach platesDirtclustit (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the 'Father card' have the correct information?

It looks like cards 4 and 6 have the same 'Beck/Piotrowski' information, but the explanation to the right does not match properly (for card 4).

It appears that the card 4 information was cut/paste accidentally and not updated properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Efficacy misspelled

Could an established editor please fix the spelling of "efficacy" (which is misspelled as "effiacy" in one section)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Today's Google image

... involves an inkblot doodle, to commemmorate Rorschach's birth and this is discussed on various newspaper websites. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it made in into Hermann Rorschach, which is probably quite appropriate, as it was the anniversary of the man, not the blots. I'd not object to having it mentioned here also, although I'm not sure where it would best be placed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Exner Scoring System" link

I believe the link "Exner Scoring System" (in the introduction) should lead not to Exner's biography on Wikipedia but to the section of this article titled "Exner Scoring System." As it is, a roundabout is created where you click that link in the introduction and you go to John Exner's article, but then the link in Exner's biography "Exner System of Scoring" leads back to this article. It's a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted text

I thought the sentence does not belong in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And I thought it was a compromise outcome after months of heated and protracted Talk Page debate and an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Rorschak article on Wikipedia

Doesn't get to the point quickly enough.

WHich point is this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese section seems spurious

I am *very* dubious about the supposed Japanese fondness for Rorschach testing as expressed in the current Japan section of this article.

Not only have I never personally seen anything like that, but please go look at the Japanese Wikipedia page on Rorschach testing: that page is very short, which does not comport at all with any supposed large amount of interest in this test in Japan.

Also, while there are two "cites" on the English page to this supposed Japanese interest in Rorschach testing, both are to a single dubious *British* source, a "Dr. Inkblot" program broadcast on July 25, 2012. I would be much more comfortable if there were cites to actual Japanese sources, preferably academic ones related to the field. It would also be more confidence building if there were also a reasonable number of these in order to bolster this astonishing claim.

Also, please note that the Japanese Rorschach Test page only has one single link, that being to the Japanese Society for the Rorschach and Projective Methods at Gifu University, which I don't find very impressive at all.

I would like to add, as a Japanese resident (non-native but for several years), that I both share the skepticism of the above commenter and note that the only two actual citations (as opposed to external links not directly supporting any specific claim) in the Japanese Wikipedia article are to books whose very titles describe the Rorschach and similar tests as "lies," "stupid," and "wrong." Were the test particularly popular in Japan, I would suspect that someone, not the least from the aforementioned Society, would be able to add at least a single citation supporting the Rorschach test's validity. (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how many readers this article gets in Japan. Some refs [23], [24], [25] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

inkblot section not readable on mobile

Should galleries be used here or some other template? The table is unreadable on mobile :( Jdlrobson (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What device, OS, browser? Table reads fine here on iPhone 5/iOS8/Safari. –xenotalk 12:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

Entire blot Refers to the area on the inkblot that is used Each location is given both a designation for the specific area and a symbol to indicate quality of response. whole (W) = Entire blot used Common Detail(D) =welldefined part used Unusual detail (Dd) =unusuall part used Use of white space (S)=percept defined by white space (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 16:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

New Rorschach online test with pretty accurate results

I think it will be useful to add link to this online test made by russian psyhologist student It has most accurate results from all online tests i've passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshach 777 (talkcontribs) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rorshach 777: How about the copyright? As far as I know, Rorschach is not free to copy? Another question is quality and validation? I assume that you are this student ? :-) Why do you think, that it is more than a game? --Brainswiffer (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes the guy who drew the 10 inkblots is more than 70/90 years dead per Hermann_Rorschach. Therefore these images are public domain which is how we are able to have them here. Now a company in Switzerland does claim to own them and they send out legal threats such as they did to us but this is just intimidation and they know they do not have the law on their side. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I see. Copyright of the pictures may not be the biggest problem. But if this "test" namedrops Rorschach and - as I assume - there is no sufficiant validation of the very absolute interpretations, this is a problem of quality. Its not a test, but a psychological game. Or the test is also "*stolen" from some newer "standardized" developments, I remember regarding Rorschach test? Theen the copyright question comes again. --Brainswiffer (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am not saying we should link to this site. The next question is are ideas copyrightable? And the answer is no. As long as the person who created this website paraphrased rather than copied and pasted from sources they are okay.
Now on to the question of does this test "work". That is a completely different matter entirely and one I am not going to get into. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, most I agree. But published ideas must be protected by copyright, otherwise its not possible to "survive" for thinking and writing persons. And as far as I know, a standardised Rorschach exists. I do not know, to which extent this person copypasted this. When you see also a quality problem (psychological tests have fo fulfill some criteria, f.e. reliability and validity), this is a good reason not to add this link here. --Brainswiffer (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
If you publish something you own that arrangement of words. You do not own the ideas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
First: any copyright can't exist for 100 years, so it is free and many psyhologist all over the world are using it right now. All results in this test are not "stolen" from any "standardized" developments, just copy some part of any result and search it in Google - you will see that results are unique.Second: quality and validation - nobody says that online test could replace real testing, but online test could be usefull for great part of users who want to take it online. Here you can see russian version of this online test -

How do you think if results quality and validation have low level could this page get 18000 facebook shares and 150000 users just for two months? You can also read comments what real people are thinking about their results Rorshach 777 (talkcontribs) 11:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to link to your website. Sorry. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
+1, Facebook shares and users you also have in games or esoteric stuff. Its not a sign for quality of a psychological test (and Rorschach is one of this). "Rorschach Game" without any claim of validity describes it more. --Brainswiffer (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an odd objection. If we rejected tests because of doubts about quality and validity, then this whole Rorschach article would be deleted. Even when given by psychologists, it is just an amusing unscientific game. So I suggest inserting the link. The reader can decide for himself how worthwhile it is. Roger (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Not quite correct. Rorschach and his test was state of the art at his time (!), and we also reflect critics from the view of today. But we have 2015 now :-)I know from BPS discussions, that the use of the word psychological test in UK also is connected to (minimal) quality requirements. The interpretation "report" of this "game" is not validated and in formulations too much absolutely. When you find this on an psychological article, the misunderstanding can be: this is state of the art of all psychological tests. --Brainswiffer (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
1. Brainswiffer, you say that you "know from BPS discussions, that the use of the word psychological test in UK also is connected to (minimal) quality requirements." Would you like to explain exactly what you mean by that?
2. Very lengthy discussions here some years ago concluded that the inkblot images themselves are no longer protected by any copyright anywhere in the world. But I'm not sure that's true of the technique for interpreting and scoring, is it? It's unclear how close the "Russian online Facebook version" is to the materials owned by Hogrefe Publishing Ltd, which has a registered trade mark for the test: [26]. If it's identical (or close enough), I suspect there would be some infringement of Hogrefe's copyright.
3. We currently link to "an interactive version of the Harrower-Erickson Multiple Choice Rorschach Test": [27]. Why is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that the site is not appropriate for the article. The article says "subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both", I don't think we have any reason to believe that this online test is consistent with that. Chillum 16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I know from discussions of EFPA (Board of Assessment), ITC and the ISO 10667 some colleagues of BPS (f.e. Dave Bartram). I know, that there are some important initatives (best seen here: with "British lead" and I was very impressed about the effords of BPS (I am familiar with German and Swiss situation). There is also a good co-operation with U.S (see ITC) I cannot imagine, that this standards are without influence for public description of any psychological tests here (and a link here is something like a public recommendation). I also know, that UK has one of most elaborated systems of applicant qualification and test evaluation. We reflect this very carefully also in German WP. I came only to your WP, because this link also was "spammed" there - and deleted. This special test has not any validation as far as I see. In do not know the other mentioned above (and I am a fan of online testing).--Brainswiffer (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. You from Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am. BTW: User:Rorshach 777 seems to be an expert of some critical thing and my Ghost counts 6 different trackers on his page. Seems the reason for his wish and also an argument against? --Brainswiffer (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
What! You've got a ghost? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my good ghost prevents spying :-)--Brainswiffer (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you need to tell Jimbo. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure he knows :-) BTW2: The mentionned Rorschach test page was offline, but is back. I wonder why there is no imprint or name on this page, f.e. in Germany a NoGo.--Brainswiffer (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Popular knowledge

Given Wikipedia's fondness for popular culture I'm surprised that this article doesn't touch on the popularity of the Rorschach test in portrayals of psychiatry. The inkblot test is surely the second most popular image of psychiatry next to someone telling you to lie down on a couch and talk about your mother. I'm sure I've seen at least one comedy where a character is given the Rorschach test and gives humorously over-the-top responses. (Probably The Simpsons.)

And surely the fact that anyone in the Western world who's given this test will have already seen it on TV, and will have certain preconceptions, affects its validity. -- (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Or not just on TV, but at Wikipedia, where they could study, and even learn, the most common reactions, in detail, at their leisure? Whatever could you be suggesting about validity? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

A portion of the article currently reads, "...but after Exner's death, the Exner family forbade any changes to be made to the Comprehensive System.[58] Therefore, they established a new system: the R-PAS."

I'd like to request an addition so that part reads, "...but after Exner's death, the Exner family forbade any changes to be made to the Comprehensive System.[58] Therefore, they established a new system: the R-PAS. The director of Rorschach Workshops, an Exner family member, has since stated that Dr. Exner always considered the System to be a "work in progress" and that they never forbade making changes. They believe another family member may have voiced a mistaken opinion."

This information comes directly from Andrea Betts, Dr. Exner's daughter and the current director of Rorschach Workshops. She has personally corresponded with at least two psychologists about this (I'm one of them) and I'm certain she'd be willing to verify her position upon Wikipedia's request. If needed, I'd be willing to facilitate that. I believe this is an important correction because considerable research with developing the System is ongoing and the assertion that such activity is "forbidden by the Exner family" is not only erroneous but it puts a shadowy cast on the researchers and dissuades further research on the System. It also creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that the Comprehensive System is dead. Rorscan (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unfortunately, we cannot accept your revision as it constitutes original research. Wikipedia runs on published reliable sources like the ones already referenced in the article. We cannot put in a family member's thought on the matter unless it has been published by a source and can be verified. If you can provide a source that says what you want to place in the article please reactive this request and someone can take a look at it. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

On the notion that publishing these actually reduces the effectiveness of them as a tool for mental health professionals

Was just part of a very lively debate amongst some psychiatrists on the fact these inkblots are "so easily" findable on Wikipedia, thus reducing their effectiveness in actual psychology tests. You'll find fewer people as big a fan of Wikipedia as I, however I was wondering if we could make the actual inkblots a bit harder to find - say put them behind a click or two so that researchers can find them, but patients won't accidentally find them. Thoughts? Flintmichigan (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to see what happened here, you probably need to start at Archive 4 (early 2008) and then plough your way through the next 4 Archives and the RfC which eventually resulted. If you suffer from insomnia you may well be cured by the time you get to the result. I don't want to ruin your excitement by dropping in a spoiler so soon, but the basic outcome was like something this - Wikipedia doesn't need to listen to the concerns of any group with a "vested interest" - whether that be the publisher Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG., or any particular professional body of psychiatrists, or psychologists, be it in the USA, or in Canada or in the UK. All the images are freely available in the public domain and have been for years. The test is generally of "doubtful value" or has recently "fallen out of favour" and does not need "protecting" in any way, because it is "special". And so to not show the images, completely and openly, cannot be logically supported in a way that is consistent with current copyright law, even though there may be studies which suggest that pre-exposure to the images affects the results in a test-retest situation. That was the outcome, with about 3 of us arguing for the full set of image to be partly or wholly hidden (or at least hidden to start with) and about 40 or so arguing that this was a non-sensensical waste of time. The debate was so heated and bitter, in fact, that some Wikipedia editors became minor celebrities and it was decided that all future postings on this subject, like yours, would need to be moved to "a special place". So I expect User:Doc James will be along quite soon to do just that (and of course, to correct any errors in my very hasty narrative above). But, by all means, go and read the Archives and make up your own mind. And if you have any evidence that more test-re-test studies have been done since about 2010, and reported in a peer-reviewed journal, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)