Jump to content

Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Deeper reasons for Rorschach inkblot test controversy

Howard N. Garb, Scott O. Lilienfeld , M. Teresa Nezworski and James M. Wood go through the historical roots for Rorschach inkblot test controversy. Psychologists hold disparate views on the importance of (a) informal clinical impressions and (b) findings from systematic clinical studies. The leading Rorschach figure, Bruno Klopfer, was openly contemptuous of the need for norms and refused to include them in his highly popular Rorschach system. The central question (according to Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood) regarding informal validation is this: Are informal clinical observations as dependable as systematic clinical studies for assessing the validity of tests and the efficacy of treatments? Their arguments is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time and Rorschach inkblot test is an informal validation.

Garb, HN; Wood, JM; Lilienfeld, SO; Nezworskid, MT (January 2005), "Roots of the Rorschach controversy", Clinical Psychology Review, 25 (1): 97–118, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.09.002{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

In this vein of arguments Rorschach controversy has deeper reasons than test itself. User:Yuccara|Yuccara]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Klopfer's opinions are ancient history (even though he should be credited as a pioneer in the field), so using his opinions to argue against the Rorschach is like using nineteenth century medical standards to argue against use of surgery. Exner and many others brought the Rorschach light years beyond Klopfer.
Garb, Wood, and Lilienfeld have largely been debunked here and in other professional publications. Garb et al. based their positions on outdated publications and selective exclusion of current research contrary to their arguements. Very bad science. Ward3001 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I just happened to find that article (Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood) by accident when I was casually looking for something else from the databases. What was something new to me was the following.
From 1940 to 1980, no figure in the United States was more closely associated with the Rorschach than Bruno Klopfer. Besides establishing the most popular American Rorschach system and co-authoring the most widely used textbook on the test (Klopfer & Kelley, 1946), Klopfer founded the Rorschach Institute (which eventually became the Society for Personality Assessment) and the Rorschach Research Exchange (which eventually became the Journal of Personality Assessment). Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood (2005).Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Now. I am not an expert here. But on the other hand it might be undestandable from Society for Personality Assessment, i.e. Rorschach Institute, to publish in their magazine Journal of Personality Assessment, i.e. Rorschach Research Exchange, an article that says that Rorschach is a valid test.Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And I am an expert on assessment. SPA has a wide variety of members, including those critical of the Rorschach. The Journal of Personality Assessment, from which this article was taken, is a peer-reviewed journal. And Garb et al. have been refuted in other publications. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be the same as if a leading judge from Supreme Court say that Constitution is not valid. Since Rorscach test is a base, i.e. Constitution, it can not changed or amended without huge debate. Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The actual inkblots are not changed, but the interpretive process has always been open to change through research, just like any other scientific concept can be modified through research. The Exner system has been modifed dozens of times of the past 30 years, by Exner himself and others. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And actually you missed the point totally. Garb, Lilienfeld, Nezworski and Wood (2005) argument is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time and Rorschach inkblot test is an informal validation.Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you missed the point by a wide margin. Informal validation??? When a properly trained psychologist interprets the Rorschach, it is not informal. The psychologist doesn't just listen to the patient's responses and informally come up with opinions. The Rorschach has been validated through formal research over the past four decades by Exner and many others. Every Rorschach response is coded on a variety of determinants. The actual object that is seen (e.g., "I see a bat") is only one of many determinants. Others include how color is used, how shading is used, whether a pair or a reflection is seen, how common the object is (derived from frequency tables), whether elements of the blot are integrated into a single percept, etc. etc. Although some (but not all) of these determinants may have been based on theory (such as psychoanalysis), the basics of interpretation do not necessarily depend on the theory. Instead, the determinants are used to derive about 150 statistical calculations, ratios, indexes, and composites. Through a vast amount of research, these statistical findings are objectively related to behavioral and emotional patterns in everyday life. Thus, no psychoanalytic "projection" is required for that aspect of interpretation. Some psychologists go beyond the statistics and use subjective interpretation of "projected" material, but Exner's system never relies exclusively on projective interpretation. Ward3001 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In other words admitting that also other informal validation methods are invalid would have profound effects to many people in practise. I would see that Rorschach inkblot test is "stronghold" in fierce battle.
Yuccara 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry my misbehaviour in previous comment(s). Right order is of course Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005). And of course in APA style it would be Garb et al (2005). Sorry. But may be you forgive me since I was not writing article to a journal, etc. Yuccara 06:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And as has been pointed out, the Exner system renders the criticism of the Rorschach as using informal validation as invalid. Moreover, Lelienfeld's work has largely been debunked within the field. Lilienfeld and colleagues are somewhat akin to the minority of scientists who claim that people have nothing to dow ith global warming. It's a fringe group. One example of Lilienfeld's honesty with respect to a claim concerning the Rorschach:
J. Reid Meloy's brief critique of just one part of Wood et al's "What's Wrong with the Rorschach" (Journal of Personality Assessment, volume 83, pp.344-346) addresses their claim that (.p.251 of Lilienfeld's book on the Rorschach) "ten replication studies examined the relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. Nine of the ten found no significant relationship. "
This may sound impressive. However, eight of the ten studies were doctoral dissertations that had never been peer reviewed and had never been published in scientific journals. Meloy wasn't familiar with all of those unpublished dissertations, but was on the committee of one of the ones cited by Wood et al as showing no significasnt relationship between reflection responses and psychopathy. The dissertation did not include enough participants who were psychopathic to make this comparison. It therefore wasn't a valid study to use by Lilienfeld. It is thus mistaken (at best) or misleading (at worst)to use it as a counterexample.
The only study that was peer reviewed and published in a journal was the one that found a significant difference. The tenth study, one of only two publuished ones, appeared in a book chapter. It did indeed fail to find a significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on reflective responses. Although the psychopaths produced three times as many reflective responses, this did not quite meet significance (p value was .07, just a bit higher than the .05 necessary for significance). Of course, none of these details were mentioned by Wood et al. Their absence confirms the conensus within the field that Lilienfeld are more interested in scoring polemic points than examining evidence objectively. Indeed, Lilienfeld and colleagues' works are filled with innacuracies, conveniently missing information etc. and aren't taken seriously by most people in the field.
This is why Lilienfeld et al have turned to the popular press with their claims. It is more easy to confince people who know less about the topic.Faustian 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


"Bibliometric" data on Exner

What is the point of this edit? As it is presented, I have no idea. Is it to show that Exner contributed mainly to JPA? What about the hundreds of other authors who wrote about the Rorschach? And JPA is one of the main journals for publishing about personality assessment. It is the only American journal devoted exclusively to personality assessment. Why would Exner publish in a journal that has nothing to do with personality assessment? And, in fact, he and others have published elsewhere, such as APA and other journals. At best the edit is pointless; at worst, it is very misleading. Deleted. Ward3001 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well. I was interested that how Exner has been contributing the thesis. Some people do it through books. Some people do it by articles. People have different valuations for books and articles. Some say that books are nothing. Some say that only articles matter. Some say that in books can be more information than in articles. Some say that books just repeat everything uselessly.
So the main point was just to give some idea how Exner´s ideas have spreaded since 1986. Not everybody have access to ISI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not true that Exner has published primarily through books. I can post an entire bibilography for Exner, as well as others researching Exner's system, in the article, but it would probably triple or quadruple the length of the article and serve no purpose. I still fail to see your point. Exner published in journals, very often. Much of what is in his books is a synthesis of his research published in journals, as well as the research of others. Exner was a huge researcher for the Rorschach. Of course he wrote books. That does not diminish the importance of his research. Have you actually read a journal article or book by Exner?? Ward3001 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Citation map could be nice; may be the most influental articles and books. The problem of ISI is that it goes only to 1986. And like the chain from ancient history today. Hey - can you do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a citation map. If you mean how often he is cited and which publications are cited, I have never had a need to know particular statistical details about number of publications, where he published, how often he was cited, etc. because I have read most of what he wrote. I don't think statistics about how much he is cited would reveal much because he is probably the most cited researcher in the history of the Rorschach. I think your concern is that he published mainly in books instead of journals (not true) and that he only published in JPA (not true). I still fail to get the point to all this. Ward3001 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Level of abstraction

Like in my previous messages I have tried to indicate that there is some doubt to whole class of projective tests, including Rorscach. I read an article denouncing projective tests, including Rorschach, and then I checked casually databases. Then I happened to see Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld and Nezworski (2005) article. Why not to add something when after reading an article? It is not big task to add summary.Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And another thing.

Why not some bibliometrics? A citation map? Why not? Surely we are all interested how the idea has developed from the first initial thought to current form. Can we draw a line? X -> Y -> Z-> Exner?Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Read Exner's works. Then you can trace development of the Rorschach and the Exner system. You can't do it with a citation map if you haven't actually read Exner. I asked before, and I'll ask again: Have you ready any of Exner's writings? Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well. Why not to add references and small summaries? Like I have indicated before not everybody have access to all databases.
  • Like I said before: The level of abstraction was my main concern. Here it goes again: 1->2->3. 1) I read an article denouncing 'all' projective test, 2) I browse for database for further enquiry, 3) I look for meta-article, 4) I find a meta-article 5) I read a meta-article 6) It happens to came my mind to add few lines of it to Wikipedia.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
READ EXNER. That's the last time I'm discussing this point. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said before. I added the main point: informal validation.
  • Their arguments is that informal validation has been denounced within the field of medicine and other disciplines for a very long time
* See my point? New info: critising informal validation, not only Rorscach.(talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING. If you want to try to write an article outside the Rorschach article about "informal validation", be my guest. But it will be mercilessly criticized by others. Just don't put it in the Rorschach article because the Rorschach is not "informally validated." Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have read almost everything what Exner has written why you don´t add some stuff to "History" part to this article? "Development of Exner´s thoughts", "Exner´s responses to criticism", "Exner´s teachers", "How Exners pupils have continued his work", "Exner´s master thesis", "Exner´s doctoral thesis", "themes of Exner´s pupils", "main works of Exner in brief", "what to research more according to Exner", etc.Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all, I have contributed to the article, especially regarding controversy. Look at the edit history. Secondly, the article has been blocked from editing for the past five weeks. No one could edit it. And finally, I will add to the article, but this article is not my entire life. I have other responsibilities. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And where are following parts of the article? "Current status of Rorschach method research", "Main themes in Rorschach method research", "History Rorschach method research". Surely you have some idea of that if you can criticize Garb et al (2005).Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't insinuate that I'm am witholding "special" informaton. I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO ADD TO THE ARTICLE. That's the last time I'm discussing this point. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW. What do you like this kind of edit?


The discussion of validity of projective tests is quite old. One good example is article of Mensh (1950) which goes through in 1950 “present-day” statistical techniques in psychodiagnostics (Mensh´s term). When new test were proposed back in 1950s statistical questions were raised of all tests, both projective and non-projective. The issues noticed by Norman are still relevant today

  • there can be nomothetic or idiographic point of view
  • what to do with phenomenon that does not fit in the normal curve?
  • units of multivariate phenomenon, like personality, can differentiate in different curves, e.g. normal curve or J-curve
  • reproduction of data in clinical practice
  • can cases be treated objectively, quantitatively and anonomously?

Problems remain since Mensh´s (1950) days. How to describe many dimensions of personality and considering all data simultaneously? Can scientific method be employed in clinical practice? How to create similar conditions in clinical practice than in research phase of a psychological test? How to value and classify observations? Can statistical method be used if statistical units, i.e. observations, are not similar because of different observers? As an example Mensh (1950) references to Rorschach (naturally version then) method where is not-similar-distributed-factor problem. Like in 1950 there is not yet unanimous agreement among researchers and issues of validity and reliability in the study of personality. The same discussion (sometimes heated) continues when projective methods are in discussion and some researchers cast a doubt to whole class of projective tests while some are defending class of projective tests.

Mensh (1950). Mensh, Ivan Norman. Statistical techniques in present-day psychodiagnostics. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 47(6), 475-492, November.

Yuccara 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You really need to develop some expertise in psychological testing in general before adding this kind of information. I can't teach you psych testing on a Wikipedia talk page. Ward3001 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually proposed edit is too long. It should be stilisised and then added with some other meta-article from 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Then it would be more informative. May be some meta-articles before 1950 also.
Well. Actually these should be two lines, i.e. pro-Rorschach and anti-Rorschach meta-articles from different decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuccara (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is my last response to you. I don't mean to be offensive, but it's obvious you don't have much knowledge of psychological testing. If you continue adding irrelevant or outdated info to the Rorschach article, I (and others) will continue deleting it. Ward3001 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing speed

There is interesting sentence.

As the patient is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the patient says or does, no matter how trivial.

Just came to my mind that is there any research of the writing speed of the psychologist?

I got 7885 references in PsychINFO with term "rorschach" in abstract search. 0 with "rorschach writing speed". 0 "rorschach shorthand". 1 "rorschach writing".

I just started to wonder (aloud - it seems).

Yuccara 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Videotaped sessions?

Is there videotaped sessions where Rorschach has been used? I checked that "Rorschach video" returned 0 results. Of course the argument is that video is not the same as a real situation.

There is not section "Training" or "Education" in this article.

Has there been video training?


Scirus database gave some references (term "Rorschach video").

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2004.07.008 "Visual scanning deficits in schizophrenia and their relationship to executive functioning impairment" Arpi Minassian, Eric Granholma, Steven Verneyb, William Perrya, Schizophrenia Research , Volume 74, Issue 1, 1 April 2005, Pages 69-79

doi: 10.1076/clin.16.3.407.13853 "When the Third Party Observer of a Neuropsychological Evaluation is an Audio-Recorder " Marios Constantinou; Lee Ashendorf; Robert J. McCaffrey, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, Volume 16, Issue 3 August 2002 , pages 407 - 412

doi:10.1016/0197-4556(88)90049-4 "The diagnostic role-playing test" David Read Johnson, The Arts in Psychotherapy, Volume 15, Issue 1, Spring 1988, Pages 23-36 No abstract.


This was interesting.

PMID: 10408210 Psychol Rep. 1999 Jun;84(3 Pt 1):869-72. "Exploring the effects of tape-recording on personality assessment" Lichton AI, Waehler CA. Abstract: This study examined the possible influence of audio and video recording of personality assessment measures on anxiety. Undergraduate students in psychology were randomly assigned to Audiotape, Videotape, or Control conditions and given the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Rorschach Inkblot Method. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among these conditions on the Spielberger, et al. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, A-State scale, and five Rorschach measures of situational anxiety. Tape-recording itself did not seem to affect the anxiety indices of these frequently used personality assessments.

Can not say more since my (or our) databases does not subscribe that journal. Well, of all thousands journals database does not contain all.


Is this all?

Yuccara 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason to hide images

So i unhid it. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for comparison. The Merciful 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue for many reasons outlined throughout this talk page. Hiding the image seems to be a good compromise between the two positions of showing it, or not showing it at all.Faustian 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And I would add to Faustian, the point is to give readers a choice, not to hide the image from those who wish to see it. The image is easily available with one click. Ward3001 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure many people would object to the images on the article anus, or prefer to have a "choice" to wether or not view them. Yet there they are, since Wikipedia is not censored. — This is part of a single edit made by The Merciful at 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC). It was fragmented when Faustian replied. This annotation added in May 2009

Hiding has nothing to do with censorship, as the image can be accessed with a click. It still is there. The image of the anus on that site is anatomical and thus innoffensive to most people.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I also already drew comparisons to spoiler tags, since the objection to the images seems to be that they are in a sence spoilers. The Merciful 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (fragment)

The fact is that because viewing the image may negatively impact someone taking the test, you rob them of the choice of whether or not to view the image if you place it at the front of the page. There is nothing wrong with basic courtesy. Although an analogy can be made with spoilers, the situation is rather different. One is probably more likely to assume that the plot will be revealed by looking up a book or movie, than to assume that one's test may be invalidated by looking up that test.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look both links, you see that hiding the ink spot image is big deviation of the standard practise, The Merciful 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (fragment)

This may be because hiding images is a clever trick that not many people are familair with.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

when far more controvesial material is shown plainly. The Merciful 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (fragment)

Nothing controversial about an anatomical diagram. If there was something and it was controversial, and there were numerous objections, it too might be hidden. As for controversial images - I don't see Princess Diana's face as she was dying posted on the appropriate article.Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I fail to see a reason for hiding the image that is not plain silly. It is just an ink spot, after all. The Merciful 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (fragment)

Just because you do not see a reason and for you "it is just an inkblot", does not mean that others feel the same way. It is not all about you. This talk page demonstrates the controversial nature of showing this image, with some arguing for not including it at all and others for including it. A compromise was worked out, where the picture remains on the site but requires a click to access. Why destroy the compromise?Faustian 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not Rorschach images are hard to come by, but the current image has the added value of authencity, and should be shown openly, as is Wikipedia's purpose. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to cater, bend etc. to demands, aesthetics, morals etc. any particular group. The Merciful 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you seem determined that it caters to you.
The fact is that this issue has been debated quite extensively, and rather than discuss it in the talk page or address the points first, you chose to make a controversial edit.Faustian 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that The Merciful appears hellbent on proving that other Wikipedians will do things his way rather than working toward achieving consensus. The two points of view in this debate (if you can call it a debate) are Let Wikipedians decide if they want to see the image vs. If the image can be shown then it must be shown. Ward3001 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image on Autofellatio is not hidden.Geni 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Perhaps the autofellatio image is not as controversial as the Rorschach image. If Wikipedians were more opposed to the autofellatio image, there would be a heated debate on the Talk page and the image would have been removed. Comparing the need for an image to be on a page on two unrelated topics makes no sense. If a video of hardcore porn were to be removed from Wikipedia, that does not mean that less controversial images should or should not be removed. Each image is judged on a case-by-case basis. Ward3001 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Rorschach image not even in the same league as the Autofellatio imagein terms of contriversy. Trust me on this.Geni 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I will not trust you on that. It's your opinion. Your saying it doesn't make it so. Ward3001 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you don't have to trust me. You could do the 3 seconds of research it would take to find the battles well some of them other such as Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio would have been harder to find. You could notice that it is listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list or you could talk to the other veterans.Geni 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
But it's still on the page, so the consensus was to keep it. That's not true of every image for which there is controversy. As I said above, comparing the need for an image to be on a page for two unrelated topics makes no sense. The controversies for the two images are very different reasons. Ward3001 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Not actualy true. In any case do you know accept that "far more controvesial material is shown plainly"?Geni 00:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion. And opinions are like assholes: Everybody has one. Let's see what the consensus turns out to be below. Ward3001 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I presented evidences. Are you unable to form a judgement based on those evidences?Geni 01:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Evidence?? All I see is your opinion about how controversial the autofellatio image is. I see no evidence comparing the relative degrees of controversialness of the autofellatio image and the Rorschach image. No data, no statistics, no citations, no consensus of opinion that the autofellatio image is more controversial than the Rorschach image (which requires more than just your opinion). Just your opinion about it. But then, it's obvious that you think your opinion is evidence, that the way you see it is the only way it can be seen. That's not the way things are done on Wikpedia, per WP:NPOV, WP:CON, and WP:V. Ward3001 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thowing up a buch of WPs to try and avoid adressing my points isn't going to work. Evidences are MediaWiki:Bad image list and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio and the talk page archives of Autofellatio. I think that counts as fairly solid evidence of contiversy.Geni 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately for the rest of us, Wikipedia policies do not depend on how important you think they are. You have presented no evidence of anything, except in your own mind. Ward3001 03:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Can it with the strawmen. as for the second part of your stamtent would you say that Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio is indicative of controversy? Yes or No?Geni 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You can it with the orders and demands for yes-no answers. Contrary to your thinking, you don't run things on Wikipedia, and discussion is permitted, not simply yes-no answers. Let me try to state this as simply as I possibly can so you can understand it. Where is your evidence that the autofellatio image is more controversial than the Rorschach image? Not whether either image is controversial; that's not the issue that's germane to this discussion that you started. This is not a talk page about autofellatio; it's about the Rorschach. I am asking for your evidence that the percentage of Wikipedians (not just you) who find the autofellatio image controversial is greater than the percentage of Wikipedians who find Rorschach image controversial. Ward3001 14:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions only part of the debate is 197 kilobytes long. This talk page with talks about things other than the image was 116 kilobytes long. What conclusion would you draw from this?Geni 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No conclusion can be drawn because kilobytes is not equivalent to percentage of Wikipedians. Ward3001 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh well that's trivial. Number of wikipedians was far lower back then. We have not exceeded the numbers involved back then thus percentage is now far lower.Geni 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If you mean that the entire issue of the autofellatio image is trivial, then I agree. If you mean that Wikipedians' opinions are trivial, you could not be more wrong. Again, Wikipedia's policies and procedures don't depend on your opinion of them (thank goodness!). And I have no idea what you mean by "We have not exceeded the numbers involved back then thus percentage is now far lower." Ward3001 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia has people involved in the project. We call them editors. As time goes by the number of these people tends to increase. Now the autofellatio debate took place in 2005 which 2 years ago. Since then the number of editors has increased rather a lot. now if you look at the first section of Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions you will see that the votes tally to 116. Now there are less than 116 involved in this debate ( this being the Rorschach inkblot image) and the total population of editors is much higher. Thus we can conclude that the percentage this time around is much lower. As I said all this is trivial to calculate.Geni 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I said percentage of Wikipedians. 100 out of 10,000 is 1%. Using lower numbers, 1 out of 100 is 1%. Percentages are a simple way to equate the metric. Now, show me the data using percentages that a greater percentage of Wikipedians find the autofellatio image controversial than the percentage who find the Rorschach image controversial. Ward3001 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Err I know what a percentage is. In this case it over complicates thing since we could use absolute fractions but eh.
Okey then
P2005 = population of wikipedians in 2005
P2007 = population of wikipedians in 2007
P2007>p2005
therefor P2007=KP2005 where K is a constant with a value greater than 1
Ca2005 = population of wikipedians in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial
Cr2007 = population of wikipedians in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial
we construct
  • Ca2005/P2005*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial
  • Cr2007/P2007*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Now as we have already established we can represent the second equation as

  • Cr2007/(KP2005)*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Now I have shown that Ca2005 = at least 116

By comparison there are less than 50 different usernames on this talk page. Okey that alone enough to end it but I'm going to be super generious. I'm going to let Cr2007=Ca2005. Thats right I've move than doubled the size of the current contriversy for the purpose of the proof. An insane degree of generosity no?

If we treat them as equal then

  • Ca2005/P2005*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial
  • Ca2005/(KP2005)*100= percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Cancel the terms:

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial=(percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial/K)

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial*K=percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

And as we have established K>1

percentage of wikipedians who in 2005 who found Autofellatio image controversial > percentage of wikipedians who in 2007 who found Rorschach inkblot image controversial

Q.E.D

Geni 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying (quite unsuccessfully) to dazzle us with mathematical pseudo-skills, give me the absolute number of Wikipedians who have commented about autofellatio and the absolute number who found the image controversial. Then give me the absolute number who commented about the Rorschach image and the absolute number who found it controversial. And I'll check your numbers. Ward3001 02:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Define your terms. Interdentally even using the most generous possible values from here (ie wikipedian= 100 edits per month and we ignore increases post Oct 2006) K = 4 Do you really think that 4 times as many people have found this image controversial? Fewer than 50 have commented on this page by comparison 74 voted for link to the Autofellatio image so where exactly are your 280 wikipedians going to come from?Geni 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You're evading the issue (nothing new in that). No definition of terms is necessary. I'm asking you to state four numbers: (1) Number of Wikipedians expressing an opinion about the autofellatio image; (2) Number of Wikipedians who think the autofellatio image is controversial; (3) Number of Wikipedians expressing an opinion about the Rorschach image; (4) Number of Wikipedians who think the Rorschach image is controversial. That reduces things down to the simplest possible terms. If you can't do that, I rest my case. You're just blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice that your argument is baseless. Ward3001 12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
just gave you some numbers. Dispute them or conceed the point.Geni 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just as I thought. You don't have a clue about the four numbers that I asked for. I rest my case. This is my last communication on this issue. It's a waste of time. Ward3001 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Current situation appropriate

I'm going to toss my two cents in here and state that as someone who has a neutral opinion on the Rorschach ink blot test, I can perhaps provide some perspective, and will attempt to do so now:

I LIKE the way it is now. It is both logical, and considerate to our readers.

The past two times I have viewed this article, it notes that it is considered to at least partially invalidate the test if one views the blot before they take it - but then still gives you the option of viewing the image, which is only of the first card. There are several reasons this is a good idea to me:

  • As much as people may try to ignore the validity of the argument, it IS true that one may not be AWARE that simply viewing one of the images from the cards could be tainting any future Rorschach test they take in the view of any psychologist who might administer the test to them. I'm actually quite interested in psychology, have taken an Intro to course on it and everything, and I STILL did not know this - thus, the article is also actually more informative right from the get-go.
  • I liked that WP was allowing people to view the image, as it can be seen as enriching the article - but allowing people the option of CHOOSING to view it, and telling them why it was formatted this way, is fantastic, because anybody who doesn't care about "invalidating" the test can see it, and anybody who's concerned about it doesn't have to - they know why it's that way, and, thus informed, can make a decision for themselves on whether they want to view it or not. Otherwise, you'd have people who would not have chosen to view it if they knew it was supposed to "invalidate" the test for them, accidentally viewing it because they did not know it was going to be there and/or not knowing that it would potentially taint the results of the test for them.
  • Comparing it to sexual or anatomical images is ridiculous. It's apples to oranges; sexual images are only offensive, and only to some, because of purely cultural reasons; the only argument against them is that they are in morally or visually poor taste, basically - a cultural aesthetic judgement. The Rorschach blots, in contrast, are a regulated set of images used for testing purposes - the results of which could be tainted by their viewing in the opinions of many of those who administer the test. A better comparison would be "Should we show an example of a question that appears on the FCAT in some form every year, or not?" - with the exception that the ink blots are actually used to gauge something that is not "level of knowledge of something we're trying to teach you", but rather "statistical match with certain personality types based on answers". But it's considerably closer a comparison than the autofellatio image, that's for sure.
  • The truth is that while may be seen as enriching the article, in the majority of cases, images are merely a nice thing to have, not a genuine necessity. Let's not pretend it's even a requirement for a good article, because most of the Featured Articles I've ever seen would have still been informative and interesting reads without the pictures. Their inclusion is normally a matter of adding content that it is believed will be appreciated by the reader, while taking advantage of the multimedia potential of the web. There's no particularly strong logical reason to include the ink blot except to satiate reader curiosity - but not all readers would necessarily be curious enough to want to see the picture.

In short, as it is now, people have the OPTION of "spoiling" the test for themselves, but they aren't forced to. We can have our cake and eat it too - allowing people who WANT to view the image (i.e. who take the calculated, informed decision of not caring if they've "invalidated the test" for themselves) to do so, but allowing people who don't (i.e. who take the calculated, informed decision of not wanting to "invalidate the test" for themselves) the option of not HAVING to view it, while knowing that if they ever change their mind, they can scroll back up and with one click, view it and satiate their curiosity. While taking advantage of the supremely useful multimedia and interactivity features of the web.

I say this, for the record, as someone who DID make the click and view it. I appreciated being informed of what viewing it could mean, and of being allowed both to view it, and to if I desired, not view it, depending on my preference.

So please - just leave it the way it is. Don't unhide it. I don't think it's necessary per se, but I also don't mind having it in there... but I liked the setup of not forcing anyone who merely wants to know the history (and not necessarily the images) of the test to view it, and telling them why they were being given a choice in the matter. Hiding it from view of those who don't want to "invalidate the test" for themselves (while offering them the option of viewing it if they so wish) is of slightly greater importance than someone merely not wanting to see "dirty" images when looking up a "dirty" subject. At least all that happens with "dirty" images is that people might get grossed out or offended.

Common sense, people; common sense and courtesy.

Thank you,

Runa27 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the image of the first pic of the Rorschach inkblot test be hidden?

This is a longstanding edit war whether or not the image should be hidden. People for it being hidden point out that viewing the first image may make the psychological test invalid and cause "serious damage" if seen, even unintentionally, and according to the American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines, psychologists must do everything within reason to maintain the integrity of the testing materials. People against it being hidden believe that it falls under WP:CENSORED, which states Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive and as such should not be hidden and believe that hiding the image is unencyclopaedic. I'm adding this to Request for Comment to get a wider opinion. -Halo 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the "damage" would be to the validity of anyone's test results should they ever be in a situation in which the Rorschach is given to them. Such people may choose not to view the image until after they take the test (and I emphasize that it is a choice; all it takes to view the image is one click of the mouse). Note also that earlier edit warring was about whether the actual Rorschach image was shown vs. a blackened outline. That is not the issue here. Ward3001 21:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason why wikipedia should be concerned about any percived damage to the test.Geni 03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not damage to the test. It is damage to the results for the person taking the test. In other words, if someone is taking the test and the results are important to that person's psychiatric treatment, viewing the image can make those results inaccurate. An analogy would be contaminating blood before conducting a CBC. The results would be damaged, and thus any diagnosis and treatment depending on those results could be wrong. Ward3001 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Again that is not our concern and the blood analogy is completely wrong. Closer would be a case where someone has used a storage mechanism that doesn't keep out enviromental contamination. Would you blame the protocol that allowed the use of that mechanism or the enviroment?Geni 03:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Geni has a propensity for declaring things right or wrong without a shred of evidence. The blood analogy is quite appropriate. Gregory Meyer et al.[1] provide metanalysis of research on validity and reliability of medical tests and leading personality tests, with clear evidence that tests such as the Rorschach are quite analogous to medical tests. Ward3001 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You will note that I went on to present a different version of the blood analogy which I feel fits the case better. On what basis do you reject this?Geni 19:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Because the blood analogy is backed up by scienctific research, with an appropriate citation, rather than opinion or speculation. Ward3001 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote? You view wikipedia as a deliberate attempt to contaminate the sample. I view wikipedia as an environmental factor. If I were running a head space analysis on a blood sample and kept getting the wrong result because I failed to use an airtight container would you blame the air or my choice to use a flawed container? I accept that the internet exists and allows rapid transfer of information (heh the internet views censorship as damage and routes around it they used to say) just as I accept that the general environment contains large amounts of sodium as a potential contaminant. It is not wikipedia's job to try and fix your flawed methodology.Geni 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Show me where I said Wikipedia is "a deliberate attempt to contaminate the sample." I have simply said that Wikipedians should be given a choice about whether to jeopardize their Rorschach results should they ever be in that situation. Ward3001 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"contaminating blood before conducting a CBC" In common english the use of the adjective suggests an active attempt to contaminate in this case by a person. And wikipedians are given the choice they are free not to read the article. You go to Vagina you get a pic of a vagina. You go to Rorschach inkblot test you get a pic of a Rorschach inkblot.Geni 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Make up your mind. First you said that I believed Wikipedia is a deliberate attempt to contaminate. Now you're saying it's the person reading the page. No "active attempt" is needed. A naive test-taker does not know that he will contaminate the results by viewing the image. You certainly did not seem to grasp the concept before it was pointed out to you repeatedly. And opening the Rorschach page is not an "active attempt" to contaminate, but once the page is opened and the image is the first thing seen, the contamination has occurred without any attempt. As the page is now, the viewer is told about possible test invalidity and given the choice to view the image by one click of the mouse. Ward3001 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew, the more I look around WP the more I am impressed with how passionate people get over stuff. I actually don't see any problem with using the blot. I've always been curious to see them anyway. But there is a simple fix to this. This might sound like a daft suggestion, but there is, by definition, nothing very special about any particular inkblots. Why not just make a new blot that looks very similar to the one shown? That way copyright and any (dubious) concerns about the validity of the test would be avoided. Any one could it! Or am I just being flippant? - My 2 cents MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

because such a blot would not be one of the test blots thus the amount of information being conveyed would be reduced.Geni 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
But there is no reduction in the amount of information if a single click is required to see the actual inkblot. Therefore the argument of censorship does not apply.Faustian 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
IF there is no censorship going on why not remove that click?Geni 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Because the click isn't about censoring the image (how can an image be censored if it's a clearly labelled click away?), it's about giving the reader the choice about whether or not they want to see it when they look at the page. By placing that image up front, at the top of the page, the reader is denied that choice by editors who decide what the reader wants to, or should want to, see. best, Faustian 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you useing a browser made in the last oh 20 10 years? there will be an option to turn pics off.Geni 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Once you see the image, there's no need to turn off pics. You've already seen it. Turning pics off after seeing the image accomplishes nothing. Ward3001 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. Does doing an IQ test invalidate you from doing any IQ tests ever again? Does doing the IPIP Neo test invalidate you from doing another personanlity test. Show the blot. Put a spoiler warning on it if that will bring consensus. Technically they are out of copyright, so that argument is a red herring. I've just been to that site that shows all the blots. I can see the argument that IF someone was to do a Rorschach test the very next day AND they came here they MIGHT be able to get a forwarning of the test and that MIGHT invalidate the test. The same thing might be said for an IQ test: you might be able to "bone up" on the answers and "cheat". But is the Rorschach the same kind of thing? I don't see how you could "bone up" on a test that relies on "seeing pictures in clouds". But how likely is that any way? An artist (someone with a trained eye - there have been scientific studies that show experienced visual artist's eyes scan very differently to 'controls') would probably get an entirely different result to, say, a musician, (who's ears are the dominant sense). When I come to WP I want information. Having the blots is information. AND it is only one of the set. Put a spoiler tag on it and get on with it. You guys are doing good work here, don't spoil it with acrimony.MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To address some of your points without regard to your opinions about showing the image: (1) Yes, doing an IQ test will invalidate a subsequent administration of the same test within a short time period. (2) Comparing the Rorschach to another personality test is comparing apples and oranges. They're not the same. (3) The issue is not "boning up" on the Rorschach because you're not trying to achieve a "high" score (as you would with an IQ or achievement test). The issue is that the Rorschach requires spontaneous responses upon first seeing the images. (4) Regarding whether visual artists or musicians (or any number of professions) respond differently than the general population, sometimes there are no differences, and you can't always trust conventional wisdom about a certain profession responding a certain way. If there is a different response pattern for a specific group, sometimes the test interpreter knows about those response tendencies and factors them into the interpretation; sometimes it's unknown. Ward3001 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the spoiler warning, that is exactly why the image requires a clearly labelled click to see. And that is the compromise between those who do not want the image up at all and those who do want it there. Unfortunately some people do not want a compromise...Faustian 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah spoilers per Wikipedia:Spoilers implied by the article title in this case no spoiler notices.Geni 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, deep breath, so we have two opposing camps here, yes? I'm not particularly involved in either side (this is not my argument and I'm not a speacialist on the subject), although I guess it's honest to say that I would err on the side of showing them.

Tell me if I've got it right.
camp 1: articulated by Ward3001. There is something special about the blots. There is only one set of official blots, there has been a lot of work go into developing the test. The test requires that the subject see them afresh or it is invalid. Don't show them.
camp 2: articulated by Geni. The value of the blots is contested. There is an educational, research and public interest value in showing the blots. This is an article about the blots. The actual blots should be shown (simulation won't do)
camp 3: articulated by Faustian. There is a compromise position between the two camps. A hidden link will keep most people happy.

Does that seem like a reasonable summation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, camp 1 and camp 3 want the same end result: a click of the mouse to display the blot. So there's no need to view those two as differing. Ward3001 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I just did a google web and image search on Rorschach inkblot. Couple of interesting results. This article comes up top of the list, so it's probably a good idea to get it right. Also this article is cited on lots of sites. And that picture is out there, as well as some of the others, so whether we have it here or not won't prevent anybody seeing it. Does that change any feelings on this issue? MarkAnthonyBoyle 07:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that this fact makes censoring the picture (by not having it up at all) a useless exercise, because someone who really wants to see it will find it elsewhere if not here. On the other hand, by requiring a click to see the image, we prevent those who are curious about the test, or unaware of the implications of seeing the blot, from accidently spoiling it for themselves on this site by giving them the choice about whether they want to se it, and warning them about the possible consequences of doing so.Faustian 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001 I can see that you feel strongly about this. Would you agree to a hidden image if there was a stronger warning against viewing it? Or perhaps it was further down the page, after the Methods section, perhaps with an explicit warning saying why it may invalid the use of the test for the viewer? MarkAnthonyBoyle 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my position is a bit misunderstood. I am agreed to the page as it is right now, with the image hidden by a single mouse click, and the current warning at the top of the page. My understanding is that Faustian and I want the same thing. Long before the current debate I was opposed to having the image anywhere on Wikipedia, but (unlike some other users) I have agreed to the compromise that was decided prior to the current debate. Ward3001 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The compromise position is only haveing the one image.Geni 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Are you pretending to fail comprehend the current debate and/or Ward's comments on purpose? Because I'd like to think you're better at reading than that. Maybe you missed subtle clues here, but it's pretty clear from context (for instance, the comment being in this particular section of the talk page which is ONLY about whether to hide the image, not the controversy over whether or not it should be included at all) that the compromise Ward3001 is referring to here is the compromise of allowing the image on WP but under a warning about the potential for test invalidation with a clickable thing to view the image AFTER an informed decision can be made. You just "corrected" someone falsely - are you sure that's where you were trying to respond? Maybe you clicked the wrong section by mistake or something...
In any case, see my above argument on this same page under I believe "Current situation appropriate"; I think this is a fantastic compromise, allowing one to see the kinds of blots used if they so wish, but not being forced to view it while only trying to look up other information (such as its history, the controversy surrounding it, whether it's still used, etc., any number of things OTHER than what the blots look like), whilst being informed as to how viewing them ahead of time may be seen as invalidating the test. This informative AND courteous to the reader, and your option of "turn off pics" is FAR from courteous to the reader in comparison; most people do not keep pic-viewing turned off or even necessarily know how to make that change in their browser (and some browsers may require a restart for that to even be set up), and a reader who was unaware of the fact that viewing the blots is seen as invalidating the test might "invalidate" it for themselves WITHOUT actively choosing to do so, when they may have well chosen the opposite had they known. Your argument's a bit of a strawman, in the sense that it says all these things that people "can" do and "should" do if they don't want to view it - but ignores the fact that people would have to basically be some sort of psychic in order to know that they should in the first place. Whereas giving them the option of viewing it, while telling them "viewing this may invalidate the actual test for you, but you can still do it if you want" is the perfect solution I think, because those that only wanted other information on the test can get it without accidentally "invalidating" the test for themselves without knowing that they're doing it, while those that still want to view it even KNOWING that it could "invalidate" the test, still can - with, I'm just going to point this out here, less effort than it would take to turn pic-viewing on and off in their browser, and without having to have the as far as I can tell somewhat obscure or at least non-universal knowledge that the test can supposedly be invalidated if the blots are viewed before testing.
In short - what's REALLY your problem here? Because I am absolutely perplexed to see that we've found the perfect solution, and yet people are still complaining about it, even though it's the best possible solution imaginable under the circumstances. But my mind is downright boggled by the idea that there is someone who actually and in apparent sincerity, thinks it is better for a reader to have to be psychic and know something that isn't universal knowledge to know how and when to turn off picture-viewing in their web browser in order to not invalidate a test that they don't even necessarily know CAN be invalidated just by viewing the image...
...than for there simply to be a little message pointing out that it is considered possible by psychologists to invalidate the test by viewing any portion of it ahead of time, but still providing a little thing they can click on to immediately show the image if they wish to view it AFTER knowing all that.
Common sense and common courtesy have already prevailed I think - so why is it that somebody's still trying to argue against this?
And on a side note - just because "other sites" do something doesn't mean we should. I mean, there is more than one site that basically violates copyright left and right by ripping off its "answers" from places like Wikipedia, taking whole articles and copying them wholesale with NO editing, and not necessarily correcting it if the particular article has errors even big ones, or if its information changes over time. Does that mean Wikipedia should do the same? And plenty of other sites include unverifiable information - does that mean Wikipedia should, too? And even MORE sites argue for a particular point of view instead aiming towards neutrality, or require paid access - does that mean Wikipedia should do those, too? Of course not. The "everyone else is doing it, so we should too" argument is a somewhat silly one, and let's please not pretend otherwise.

- Runa27 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying

Ah, I think I see now. There is so much discussion, over such a long period on this issue, I hadn't quite got it right? So the discussion now is, just to clarify, that:

Camp1: given the circumstances, although we don't like it and we have very good reasons for not showing them, we will concede to having one hidden image.
Camp2: show the lot, (or is it "just show this one, don't hide it") this is a public interest issue, in an authorative encyclopedia, people have a right to see and discuss them and make up their own mind.

Have I got it right now, or close enough? Or did I miss something again? Look, don't get me wrong, I just think that given such a long and heated debate, it might be worth clearly and succinctly stating the "bottom lines" as they stand now. Yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC) MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just have to reiterate that with respect to Camp 2, having people click on the image does not deny them the right to see it and indeed gives them the right to make up their own mind.Faustian 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Show 2/3 (any more would be excessive given the length of the article). Prepared to compramise on one and a picture of Hermann Rorschach and idealy a picture (or diagram) of a test underway but eh that can wait.Geni 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are trying to raise the stakes and present increasingly more extreme positions, so that a new "compromise" becomes your original extreme position.Faustian 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. That's Geni's style. And if we were underhanded enough, we could go back to the old position of demanding that no image be shown at all, with or without a click. But we are willing to compromise without such deception. And there's already a picture of Hermann Rorschach on his bio page. Ward3001 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of time I've invested in the image side of wikipedia do you really think that haveing all ten would count as an extream position for me? They are relivant free media.Geni 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue is your ratcheting up your demands when it looked like you might not get 100% of what you wanted; your inability to compromise. The other side could do that just as easily as you have, but that's not the spirit of compromise. Ward3001 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You are free to try and defend your orginal position.Geni 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
But that would be unethical when we're trying to honestly compromise and reach a consensus. Some of us have ethics; some of us are not underhanded and deceptive. Ward3001 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if this is not meant as an insinuation and a personal attack, it could easily be construed to be one. Let's stop it here and now. Please don't give a fellow editor reason to believe that he/she is being attacked and insulted. Let's remain civil, rational and to the point. AecisBrievenbus 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, everyone stay calm!!! :-) I think we have a consensus for now, yes?

  • Camp1: given the circumstances, although we don't like it and we have very good reasons for not showing them, we will concede to having one hidden image.
  • Camp2:Prepared to compromise on one and a picture of Hermann Rorschach and idealy a picture (or diagram) of a test underway

Woohoo!!! so whaddya say guys: one hidden pic, with a good clear warning?MarkAnthonyBoyle 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a very reasonable compromise. I don't see the need for Hermann Rorschach's pic, but if that's what it takes to satisfy everyone I'm OK with it. One other sticky issue might be the wording of the warning. There has been a lot of confusion as to why the warning is needed, so I think some of the non-experts can cause a lot of problems if it's worded poorly. The wording as it is right now is quite adequate. Ward3001 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not accepting hidden pic. Will accept pic placed down the page with warning at the top as long as warning flows with the text of the article.Geni 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
A pic further down on the page with a warning is better than one on the top with no warning. It at least doesn't automatically force anyone looking up Rorschach on wikipedia to see the image. It allows them the choice of not reading the rest of the article in order to avoid the image. But the fundamental problem is still there. By placing the image farther down, you are still not giving those who choose to read the entire article the choice of whether or not they would like to see the image. Shouldn't readers have the right to read the entire article without being forced to see the image?Faustian 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious point for most people, but I think it's worth stating at this point. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Ward3001 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the picture. Don't hide it. I Don't care enough to stand in the way of consensus. — DIEGO talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, the "damage" would be to the validity of anyone's test results should they ever be in a situation in which the Rorschach is given to them.
I question whether it is appropriate to use the terms "validity" and "Rorschach inkblot test" in the same sentence. Is this a joke? Serious damage? I am definitely not one to flout APA ethical guidelines, but give me a break. Showing one inkblot from the incredibly subjective and generally useless Rorschach test is a far cry from showing problems from an actual objective, norm-referenced, cognitive assessment like the WAIS, WISC, WJIII, etc. In the case of tests with a high degree of objectivity, reliability, and external validity, showing even one picture or problem actually could cause harm if someone were to see it a short time before taking the test (still, highly unlikely if it were the first question on the test). Also, the results these tests are frequently used as a basis for making critical decisions. But when are the results of the Rorschach ever used to decide anything important (independent of corroboration from more objective measures)? — This is part of a single edit made by Diego at 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC). It was fragmented when Faustian replied. This annotation added in May 2009
No test is used without corroborative data from other tests and/or interviews. As for the Rorschach used together with other tests and interviews, it is second most widely used test in forensic assessments in the United States (behind only the MMPI) and the second most widely used by members of the Society for Personality Assessment. I have seen it used quite often in forensic, disability, and other settings. A small minority, of generally academic non-practicing psychologists, have criticised its use (Lillenfeld and his circle) but their POV is rather marginal within the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, there are probably practitioners out there who still swear by the Rorschach, but there are also people using the TAT and practicing psychoanalysis and regression therapy —that doesn't make it right. Diego 16:06, 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (fragment)
Well, the Ivy League hospital where I consult doesn't accept postdocs nor interns without a good knowledge of the Rorschach. Even psychiatric residents there are expected to become familiarized with it. But perhaps it's an east coast thing. I have noticed among several otherwise very well-informed and skilled colleagues that, for whatever reason, that the redder the state they are from, the less likely they are to be proficient in the use of projective tests.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Showing one inkblot from the test will do no serious harm to the results should someone happen upon the picture prior to taking the test, since the results themselves are much more likely to be influenced by the interpretive whim of the examiner. Diego 16:06, 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (fragment)
This is just false. I would compare seeing a single image of the Rorschach prior to taking it, to for example playing with the blocks from the block design portion of the WAIS or WISC prior to taking one of those tests. It wouldn't utterly ruin the test, but it would indeed be detrimental to its validity for the person taking it. Again, why force people to see the image rather than giving them the choice about whether or not they would want to see it or not?
Incidentally, the wiki entry on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale doesn't list the questions from the various subtests nor provide details about the test's administration (such as showing the blocks, detailing the nature of tasks, etc.) But for some reason people have decided to pick on the Rorschach.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course the WAIS article doesn't list questions or show pictures of the block designs. That would be unethical, and could actually compromise the validity of the score (on a valid assessment). The Rorschach and the WAIS are not the same. The reasons why people are "picking on" the Rorschach would not apply to the WAIS. Showing an actual objective question or block design (as on the WAIS) is a lot different from showing a picture of what is essentially nonsense. — DIEGO talk 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think a psychologist is not being unethical if he purposefully displays the Rorschach images to the general public outside of an administration of the test, you have demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of professional ethics. And your POV statements about the Rorschach as "nonsense" don't justify such an ignorance of those ethics. Ward3001 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Again with the attacks. I am not ignorant of APA ethical guidelines, and I never said that it would be permissible under those guidelines to post the picture. I implied that it would be a far worse ethical breach to post questions from other assessments (due to my disdain for the Rorschach) and it would not violate my personal ethics to post a picture from an assessment that I don't think is valid in the first place. — DIEGO talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
We could have avoided what you perceived as a personal attack if you had clarified that you were talking about personal rather than professional ethics. I assumed, since we were talking about showing material from the WAIS that you were talking about professional ethics. Whilte we're on the issue of personal ethics, my personal ethics dictate that the contents of the Rorschach be protected from public exposure as much or more than the contents of the WAIS or any other test because I have read a substantial amount of research indicating that the Rorschach has as much validity as many other widely used tests. Ward3001 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to have an article mentioning inkblots, I think it is a good idea to show readers what an "inkblot" looks like. Is the Rorschach ever updated? How about showing a discontinued inkblot from a previous version? — DIEGO talk 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that an inkblot image for the page makes sense. Given the concerns for validity, people who might want to take the test ans not have it compromised for themselves should be given the choice t about whether or not they would like to see it. Or, a similar image that would give an idea about the test without it being the actual image could be put on the page with no click required, along with the actual image requiring the click for those who choose to see the real thing. The "fake inkblot" was up on this page a few months ago I think.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments reflect a gross misunderstanding of scientific advances in the Rorschach over the last 30 years. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and you clearly have little knowledge of the current status of the Rorschach. Your statement that it is "subjective" shows a complete absence of knowledge of the Exner system. And the Rorschach is norm-referenced, with an update of norms occurring quite recently, something you apparently did not know either. As for your implication that the Rorschach is not used to make important decisions, I have seen the Rorschach used very effectively (in combination with other tests and a variety of other information sources) in diagnosis and treatment planning hundreds of times. Read the literature and it might open your eyes a bit. Ward3001 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Your unconditional affection for an outdated projective assessment reflects a gross misunderstanding (or willful ignorance) of advances in the scientific study of behavior and cognition over the last 20 years. Are you seriously asserting that the Rorschach itself (not the scoring system) is objective? I never said I was an expert on the Rorschach, and I'm not an expert on blood-letting, psychoanalysis, or phrenology either, but I don't have to be in order to condemn them as utterly anachronistic and of dubious value in the objective, scientific study of anything. The Rorschach should not be used alone to make important decisions, and your "in combination with other tests and a variety of other information sources" supports my point. I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I'm too busy here in the 21st century. Or maybe I'm just repressing deep emotional wounds borne out of Oedipal tendencies and an anal fixation. Care to defend the TAT with such devotional ardor, too? — DIEGO talk 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think that any psychological test can be objective apart from it's scoring system and it's administration (and both are objective with the Rorschach), then WHAT criteria do you use for objectivity? With your standards, there is NO objective psychological test, not the WAIS-III, not the MMPI-2, or any other test. If you think a test is objective just because a computer generates scores, you are more lacking in knowledge than I imagined. Tests do not interpret themselves. Numbers don't make a test objective. So I repeat: How do you define an objective test?
What? The questions themselves can be objective. My issue with the Rorschach is not a lack of consistency in administrering or scoring the intrument. I would assume that steps are in place to assure inter-rater reliablility and consistency for any assessment commonly used in current practice). My issue is the subjectivity of the questions (inkblots) themselves. To me "subjective" does not imply "haphazardly administered" or "scored at random depending on the mood of the psychologist". Maybe I need to clarify the difference difference between an "objective" and "subjective". The Rorschach is subjective because the number of possible answers is infinite, and therefore require the administrator to subjectively categorize all responses and infer information that the test-taker may not have intended.Independent of the consistency employed in the administration and scoring, I would consider as "objective" any assessment in which the majority of the questions either (a) have a clear "correct" answer, (e.g., what is 2+2?, can you arrange these blocks so they look like this picture?, etc.), (b) present a finite number of possible responses (e.g., true/false, yes/no, Likert scale, etc.), (c) have a clear target answer that only requires an administrator to subjectively evaluate and categorize responses which do not match the target answer (e.g., "How are ice and steam alike?" [from the WISC-IV], or, (c) at the very least, have inherent meaning and are expected to elicit a response direcly related to the inherent meaning in the question (i.e., inkblots do not have inherent meaning, but asking "what makes you angry?" does). The WJIII, WAIS-III, WISC-IV, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A, etc., while not perfect, generally ask objective questions that can be scored by an administrator with an absolute minimum of subjective categorization. Not to mention these tests all feature hundreds of questions (almost 500 for the MMPI) vs. ten measely inkblots.
Once again, your explanation of "objective" reflects a profound lack of knowledge of the Exner system. The examiner does not "subjectively categorize all responses'. The response "I see a man" clearly results in a Human content category. The response "The whole thing reminds me of ..." clearly denotes a location of Whole. The response "Two birds, one on each side" is a pair response. I could give hundreds of examples. And in regard to the examiner "infer[ing] information that the test-taker may not have intended", do you think that does not happen with the MMPI-2? Do you think there is no inference when the examiner interprets what it means when scale 8 (or any scale or combination of scales) is elevated? Do you think there is no inference when theexaminer interprets a PIQ substantially greater than VIQ? Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What you have just descibed is subjective categorization! Yes, "I see a man" clearly results in a categorization of "Human", but it is the administrator who decides that, not the test taker. What if the person saw a snowman, or a scarecrow, but only said "man"? Are those human? What if the participant had said "I see love", or "I see flarn" or "puddle", or "ink" or "deep brick mountain fun". Would two "flarns" scored differently than one "flarn"? Would "I see a little girl" and "I see and old man" both simply be characterized as "human"? The burden of characterizing those responses falls on the administrator, not the person whose psyche is supposedly being evaluated. If there are only a limited number of categories, why not make it multiple choice? That would shut me up. Almost. — DIEGO talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, who besides the examiner, makes a differentiation between a 1 and 2 point response on WISC-IV Vocabulary? That is a subjective judgment, guided by a few words and examples in the manual. Same process with the Rorschach; in many cases, even less subjectivity with the Rorschach.
All of the examples you gave are easily coded for content without "subjectivity": scarecrow = (H); snowman = (H); "I see love" = Hx; "I see flarn" = Id; puddle = Ls; ink = Sc; deep brick mountain fun = Hx; two flarns are a pair if blot symmetry is used; "I see a little girl" and "I see an old man" are both coded H for content but differently on other determinants depending on what else might be said in the inquiry. All coded without subjectivity. Can you tell me that is the case with 1 vs. 2 point responses on Vocabulary? Ward3001 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Aah, the subjective vocabulary scores. The 0, 1 or 2 point scores on the vocab section of the WAIS and WISC are precisely the reason that I qualified my reponse above by saying "most questions have a clear right or wrong answer or a clear target answer. For the record, I actually have an issue with the subjectivity of the vocabulary section of these tests (and with other questions that require the examiner to rate responses based on a few examples in the manual). I would never use either them in practice. I have seen firsthand two or more experienced practitioners argue over whether an answer is a zero, one, or two point answer, which does not give me much confidence in the tests. The subjectivity (admittedly minimal compared with the Rorschach)of the WAIS and WISC is reason enough for me not to use either of them since there is a superior instrument without these limitations, the WJ-III. Does that mean that the WISC and the WAIS are not valid? No. It means that I don't like subjectivity in psychological assessments. Which is why I also think that if other, less subjective instruments can provide the same information as the Rorschach, those should be used instead. — DIEGO talk 02:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the critical point that you refuse to understand: The implication in your statement "The subjectivity (admittedly minimal compared with the Rorschach)" is patently false. You ignored the other things I said in the same paragraph. The subjectivity in my codings from the Rorschach examples that you raised is less than the subjectivity with the WISC Vocabulary (and other) subtests. (Incidentally, there is subjectivity in the WJ-III). No personal attack here, but to put it in the vernacular, this whole idea of subjectivity of the Rorschach compared to other tests is something that you are pulling out of your ass. It just isn't backed up by the facts. Ward3001 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Because I am admittedly not an expert on the Rorschach, I have no way of knowing the level of subjectivity involved in your codings (i.e., how do I know that all, or most, of your colleagues would agree with the codings that you've assigned to these responses?) So the fact that you found them easy to code is not really the point. That is why I brought up the heated disagreements that I have seen regarding scores on the WISC-IV vocabulary subtest. I am deeply concerned by these disagreements between experienced practitioners regarding issues that could affect the outcome of of the assessment. As you know, the WISC is used (often supported by little more than a perfunctory interview, unfortunately) to make important decisions where a score difference of one point (69 vs. 70, 89 vs. 90) can have a considerable impact on treatment, placement, and legal decisions. I'll refrain from any further comments on this until I have had a chance to read the research you're sending me. But I just have to know: what the hell is a flarn? ;-) — DIEGO talk 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You say, "I am admittedly not an expert on the Rorschach, I have no way of knowing the level of subjectivity involved in your codings". That is my exact point. You repeatedly refer to how subjective the Rorschach is compared to other tests, yet you don't know how subjective it is. If you had a fundamental knowledge of Rorschach coding, you would know that there would be much less disagreement about my codings above than there is disagreement over many aspects of WISC-IV scoring. I'm not saying it is important that you understand Rorschach coding to be a psychologist, but to take such a strong position about its "subjectivity" requires some basic knowledge of how subjective it is. For you to say "I'm not an expert on the Rorschach and don't know how subjective Rorschach coding is", and then sharply criticize the Rorschach for being subjective flies in the face of elementary logic. Ward3001 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Flarn" is coded Id because it is nonexistent. It likely would also receive some other patholigical codes depending on the entire initial response and inquiry response. Ward3001 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the subjectivity however, I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI or a simple structured interview. No amount of factor analysis or norm-referencing can change that. If the assessment is not demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis (to my knowledge Rorschach results are not a diagnostic criterion for any condition in the DSM-IVTR), then it is an essentially worthless waste of time and money. — DIEGO talk 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I challenge you to provide evidence that the MMPI-2 is more "theoretically defensible" than the Rorschach, or that the MMPI-2 is more "demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis". Give me the citations. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I challenge you to provide evidence that " the interpretation of inkblots provides useful information that we could not obtain any other way". Also, I'm not a poster child for the MMPI, I was simply pointing out that it is objective in ways that the Rorchach is not. The MMPI is more "theoretically defensible" because it asks actual questions, in English, and elicits responses to those questions. Are you serious? You don't understand that asking a question is a more theoretically defensible way of obtaining information than saying "what do you think of this meaningless inkblot?" — DIEGO talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Give me your email address and I'll send you a reference list. The only reason I can't post it here is that it probably would triple or quadruple the length of this Talk page.
The Rorschach "asks actual questions, in English, and elicits responses to those questions. So again, give me evidence that the MMPI is more "theoretically defensible". Ward3001 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And guess what: You can administer, score, and interpret the Rorschach without reference to psychoanalysis, Oedipal tendencies, or any of the other constructs that you falsely attribute as underpinnings of the Exner system.
I was not attributing the constructs of psychoanalysis to the Exner system. I was simply comparing them because they are both complete bunk, yet still remain popular among some anti-scientific practitioners. My point was, the popularity of the Rorschach should not be taken as an indication of its validity, any more than the popularity of psychics is an indication of their validity. — DIEGO talk 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I never said that "popularity of the Rorschach [is] an indication of its validity". The validity of the Rorschach has been very well established with decades of well-conducted research. If you want citations I will email them to you. They are too numerous to include on this talk page. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't, but Faustian did say "it is second most widely used test in forensic assessments in the United States". What other conclusion should I draw from that statement? Why else is its popularity relevant? — DIEGO talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I wrote that in response to you statments that a small number of psychologists use that test, statements that were very incorrect.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And I beg to differ that you should not be as critical of any test as you are the Rorschach without some fundamental knowledge of its status over the last 30 years. You're the one living in the past. You're talking about the Rorschach as it was in 1960. No responsible psychologist would do that with a test.
Have the inkblots changed since 1945 or gained some inherent meaning to which responses can be reliably compared? By the way, the original Rorschach (without Exner's norms) is available and remains a top seller in Psychological product catalogues. So don't assume too quickly what "responsible" psychologists would and would not do. Are psychoanalysts "responsible" practitioners? How about people practicing regression therapy? My definition of irresponsible covers anyone using outdated methods with no empirical support indicating that they are actually useful. Practitioners like this are a major impediment to the advancement of psychology as a legitimate science. When this sort of malpractice is tolerated and even condoned (APA division 39), when actual knowledge is ignored in favor of tradition, it belittles 40 years of rigorous scientific contributions that have been made in the field. Unfortunately, until it rejects theoretical voodoo and hero-worship, psychology will always be a soft science. If you are aware of literature demonstrating that the Rorschach is a valid measure of something useful (that could not be obtained more simply or inexpensively), I would be willing to read it. — DIEGO talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelvant that the inkblots haven't changed. It is the system of administering, scoring, drawing parallels to behavior, and interpreting that has changed immensely over the last thirty years. It doesn't take much understanding to know that the inkblots haven't changed. It requires some knowledge to know that how they are used has changed. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It is possible to draw statistical parallels between all sort of things. My point is that the the inkblots themselves are nothing special and they are inherently meaningless. Since this is the case, why not use people's answers to actual questions (in the form of other norm-referenced tests) as a diagnostic tool. Why "improve" the way in which we administer and score interpretations of meaningless blobs when we could just use other measures that aren't steeped in the unfortunate history of psychology as a pseudoscience? Why the Rorschach? — DIEGO talk 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, your ignorance of the Exner system is painfully showing. Exner's more recent research has shown that the inkblots are not entirely meaningless and, in fact, H. Rorschach never intended them to be. As for " the inkblots themselves are nothing special and they are inherently meaningless", each individual word on the MMPI or WISC-IV or any test with words is "nothing special and ... inherently meaningless" for test interpretation, until you put them together, elicit a response, score that response, convert scores into appropriate statistics, and apply a vast amount of empiricial research to build interpretation. That is the process that is used with the Rorschach. Ward3001 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


I was about to take to heart Faustian's admonition to me to cool down, thinking maybe you were well-intentioned but mistaught. Now I have no doubt. You don't understand the Rorschach, you don't wish to understand it, but you fancy yourself knowledgeable enough to speak intelligently about it. I'm to busy here in the 21st century to go back and forth with you when you pride yourself in being so uninformed. Interesting but completely useless talking to you. I will not respond to any of your other comments unless they are relevant to the Rorschach in 2007. Ward3001 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ward3001, your personal attacks are way out of line. I see this is not the first time you have assumed bad faith and impugned the intelligence/knowledge of editors with whom you disagree. I don't "fancy myself" anything. I am allowed to voice a dissenting opinion from you. You are welcome to respond to that opinion on its merits, but turning a disagreement over the value of inkblots into a personal attack is not the most effective way to make your point. You seem to think that anyone who has not received extensive training on the Rorschach has no right to criticize it. This is sort of a ridiculous assertion. Does one need to be an economist to criticize economic policies? No. Would I have to subject myself to four years of chiropractic school in order to question the evidence-base supporting that profession? No. I have received extensive training at the University of Common Sense, and I think that alone entitles me to voice an opinion on anything that raises BS red flags (and trust me, claiming to predict a person's future bahvior based on his or her interpretation of meaningless inkblots raises plenty of red flags). I do not "pride myself" in being uniformed. Unfortunately, it seems that anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed". However, I do pride myself on my ability to apply rational analysis to dubious-sounding claims. I am able to divorce public opinion and educational indoctrination from a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. I don't need to be an expert on the Rorschach to understand its inherent limitations as a subjective evaluation intrument, I only need to be an expert in common sense and basic principles of empirical research. It so happens that I do have considerable experience in psychological research (both neuroimaging and applied psychoeducational research) and I have been trained in a number of assessments, but that should not be a factor in whether or not my opinion is valid. Again, feel free to disagree with opinions, but please refrain from personal attacks. — DIEGO talk 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Linking the opinions to scientific research is not a personal attack. And yes, you are allowed to voice your opinion. I never said you weren't. I also am allowed to point out whether those opinions have any scientific basis. It's one thing to have inadquate knowledge because it hasn't been taught to you. It's altogether different to harshly denounce something when you have almost no understanding of it. And when you do that, the rest of us are fully entitled to point that out. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you even understand the difference between saying "that comment is not supported by evidence like X,Y, and Z" and saying "you have no understanding of the Rorschach and have no right to denounce it." One is debating the merits of an argument, the other is a personal attack. Even if I am completely wrong, my argument has been against the test itself, not the editors defeding it. I would never say "you are a douchebag for defending the Rorschach" or insult your intelligence for disagreeing with me. I have only little understanding of many things, like genocide, religious fundamentalism, and bowling, so would it be wrong for me to denounce them? — DIEGO talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not say you "have no right to denounce" the Rorschach. You have that right, just as I have a right to challenge what you say that is not based on solid research. And it is becoming increasingly clear to those of us who do have some understanding of the Rorschach that you have little understanding of the Rorschach (specifically the Exner system). I'm not the only one who thinks that. Additionally, if you attack a test as strongly (yes, venomously) as you have the Rorschach, I think it's quite reasonable for editors to challenge your lack of knowledge. That's what talk pages are for. I have never said you're stupid, or evil, or other pejorative adjectives. I have simply said you don't understand the Rorschach, which you don't. Ward3001 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I generally agree with you I think you need to cool down a bit. Diego is just repeating what he has been taught.Faustian 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Faustian, I resent the implication that I am nothing more than a robot repeating what I have been taught. I am quite capable of thinking critically for myself. I just think that any practice or claim should have to stand on its own merits and not lauded or honored based on the fact that it has been used for 50 years. Things have changed a lot in the past 50 years, and we now have more reliable ways of obtaining the information that the Rorschach supposedly measures. But too many practitioners in the field insist on rejecting research-based practice in favor of embracing baseless peronal pet theories and philosophical frameworks. — DIEGO talk 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Diego, it is clear from your comments that you understand little about the Rorschach (otherwise you would not have made many of your comments). Thinking critically about something is not possible without knowing something about it. You have, yourself, stated that you know little about the Rorschach and don't want to know much about it: "I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I'm too busy here in the 21st century." Thus, by your own criteria, you reject research-based practice and instead embrace outdated theories (that use of the Rorschach is unchanged from 1950) and philosophical frameworks (that because the blots are 80 years old they are no longer useful - any empirical validation for this assertion?). I suspect you were given misinformation or rather little information about the Rorschach and base your statements accordingly (and your dogmatic ideology, also presumably learned at the same place, likewise plays a role). This is not meant to be insulting or patronising, and I apologize if I've offended you, it is my observation. With such attitudes you have better avoid "intellectual backwaters" such as Yale or Cornell which do indeed value the Rorschach and/oor psychoanalysis. Anyways, I will address some of your other points later, when I have more time.Faustian 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with Faustian. Ward3001 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Faustian, I'm not sure if you read my statement above: "If you are aware of literature demonstrating that the Rorschach is a valid measure of something useful (that could not be obtained more simply or inexpensively), I would be willing to read it." — This is part of a single edit made by Diego at 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC). It was fragmented when Faustian replied. This annotation added in May 2009.

I don't do billing, but my impression is that the MMPI is more expensive than the Rorschach, though less time consuming for the practitioner.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In reference to "I have no intention of reading the Rorschach "literature", I was referring, in an admittedly exaggerated manner, to literature explaining Exner's work or stating that the the test is now norm-referenced, because developments in the scoring system are tangential to my main points of contention with the Rorschach (and other subjective tests like the TAT, Bender-Gestalt, Person-Tree-House, etc.). Diego 21:47, 3 October 2007 (fragment)
Okay, sorry for misunderstanding.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that something is worthless or outdated simply because it is old. On the other hand, if something was crap in 1945, no amount of polishing will change the fact that it is most likely still crap in 2007. I didn't say that "because the blots are 80 years old they are no longer useful". I meant to imply that they were never actually useful, even 80 years ago. As for empirical evidence, I think the burden is squarely on you. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Diego 21:47, 3 October 2007 (fragment)

Given that the Rorschach is an established test in much use by psychologists (popularity among doctors or psychologists or other professionals at the highest level of training is not the same as popularity among the masses as in the case of, say, psychics) I submit that the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof is the statement that this test is garbage.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the Rorschach or other projective instruments, the statement of the Society for Personality Assessment contains plenty of references and summarizes the research: [1]. In terms of validity the Rorschach is no worse than the MMPI. It is naturally a very different test and provides different ways of obtaining information with comparative advantages. For example, research has shown (sorry, I don't remember the journal and don't have time now to hunt iot down, but I don't read "voodoo journals") that it is harder to "fake good" on the Rorschach than it is on the MMPI. The implications for forensic, child custody evaluations, etc. where people are quite motivated to present a falsely positive image of themselves, are obvious. In terms of cost-effectiveness, running an invalid MMPI is still billed by Minnesota, and the percentage of invalid profiles in forensic settings (and thus, clients being charged a lot of money for useless information) is not good. Another situation in which the Rorschach is usefull is in inpatient settings, where people are often (in mine and others' experiences) much more likely to sit through a Rorschach than they are through an MMPI.Faustian 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't see me disparaging the lightbulb and internal combustion engine as "outdated", do you? Has the actual Rorschach (not the "use of" the Rorschach) changed since 1945? In response to the Yale and Cornell statement. Don't let the academic pedigree of an institution fool you into thinking that all of their programs reflect a committment to evidence and rational inquiry. Exhibit A: The Yale Divinity School, where students are taught that humans can rise from the dead and virgins can give birth. — DIEGO talk 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How can a test be evaluated apart from how it is used? The blocks on Block Design haven't changed in a very long time, but that doesn't mean that the Wechsler scales (including Block Design) have no more value than they did 50 years ago. To say that the inkblots were "crap" in 1945 and so they are crap now absurdly ignores an immense amount of research that has happened since 1945, just as research has occurred on the Wechsler scales during several decades. And I completely disagree that you have no responsibility to present empirical evidence supporting your position. Such strong criticism about the Rorschach that you have spouted vehemently (even venomously) requires more than just your own thoughts. You are entitled to express your thoughts, but it is absurd to argue that you don't have to provide empirical support but your opponents do. Try doing that in a graduate school class, or a journal article, and see how far you get. Ward3001 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do I need to provide empirical support showing that inkblots do not provide any special insight into menal functioning beyond that which could be obtained through more straightforward means? It seems to me that claiming that "inkblots possess some special characteristics that can be used, like tea leaves, to predict the future" is the more outrageous claim. The burden of proof falls upon those making bizarre claims, not the other way around. The only thing I have spouted vehemently (and definitely not venomously) is my disdain for baseless respect to tradition and hero-worship that prevents progress in the field and only serves to widen the research-practice gap. I have nothing against the Rorschac, in particular. It just happened to come up on the RFC list. — DIEGO talk 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me what advocate of the Rorschach has said "inkblots possess some special characteristics that can be used, like tea leaves, to predict the future". And the reason you have a burden of providing empirical evidence is that you claim other tests, such as the MMPI-2, are superior. That requires empirical evidence. I challenged you above to provide that evidence, and I have not seen it yet. So I'm waiting for two things from you: What Rorschach advocate made the "tea leaves" claim? And where is the empirical support that "measures like the MMPI ... [are]demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis" more so than the Rorschach (the last set of quoted words are yours). Ward3001 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I like your creative use of the ellipsis (...) and complete fabrication of a [verb] to link together to sentences and completely mischaracterize the quote. Here is what I actually wrote: "I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI or a simple structured interview. No amount of factor analysis or norm-referencing can change that. If the assessment is not demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis (to my knowledge Rorschach results are not a diagnostic criterion for any condition in the DSM-IVTR), then it is an essentially worthless waste of time and money." The questions on the MMPI are objective (there are only two possible answers for each question). If you are asserting that the Rorschach is demonstrably accurate in predicting actual behavior or making an accurate diagnosis, then prove it. If you are asserting that showing an inkblot to someone is more accurate than asking a question to elicit useful information, then prove it. I never made any claims regarding what the MMPI can and cannot do, only that its format is more objective (T/F statements with inherent meaning vs. inkblots with no inherent meaning. Do you seriously disagree with that?
"I do not believe that the Rorschach measures anything useful that cannot be measured using more theoretically defensible measures like the MMPI." That is about as clear a claim about the MMPI as I have ever seen. Ward3001 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"What Rorschach advocate made the "tea leaves" claim?" Are you familiar with hyperbole? I'll translate the statement for you: "Show me that the interpretation of inkblots is more useful at predicting behavior than other measures (i.e., there is something "special" about inkblots). I don't have to prove that your crazy claims aren't true. — DIEGO talk 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I will not accuse you of a condescending personal attack for asking me if I understand hyperbole and "translating" a statement for me. I will assume good faith. You placed the words in quotation marks. Not too big of a stretch to conclude that you were quoting someone who made a statement about the Rorschach. And, again, give me your email address and I'll send the reference list to address the relative merits of using the Rorschach compared to other measures in predicting behavior. Ward3001 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to give me 20 studies, just a methodologically sound meta-analysis or two will do just fine (providing they were not printed in voodoo journals like Annals of the Rorschach Enthusiast Society, Journal for the Advancement of Projective Assessment, or Inkblot Research Quarterly). You can post links, citations, or doi info on my talk page. And I'm not the one who brought the level of civility this low. — DIEGO talk 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I understand your request for a "quickie" coverage of Rorschach research, I'm afraid it's not as simple as a single metanalysis if you're talking about comparing two or more tests (or other methods) in "predicting behavior." Give me your email address and I'll send the full list. And do you consider American Psychologist or Psychological Assessment or Assessment or Journal of Personality Assessment to be voodoo journals? Ward3001 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No. I do not consider those journals to be "voodoo journals". And, incidentally, the order in which you listed them reflects the the order of relative "prestige" that I would have assigned them. Just so you understand what I mean by "voodoo journals", here are a few examples: Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Arts in Psychology, and Journal of Psychology and Theology. There are many more, but they all have a few things in common: they are devoted to publishing primarily qualitative research (and book reviews), in arcane "fields" that are often seemingly contradictory. — DIEGO talk 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Steady on chaps

Play the ball and not the man fellas. Most of this discussion is not strictly speaking relevent (although fascinating). An encyclopedia article should contain the facts, (stuff about the test), and any criticism (stuff about the controversy). Although I love a good stoush, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to prove or disprove anything, just record the facts. :-) cf christianity

MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We could have a consensus here if.....

I would like to see the issue resolved. I had no problem seeing the image by clicking the link, and the entire set from the link further down the page. People who, like me, want to see the blots, can just do what I did. Let those who have their reasons (whatever you and I might think of those reasons) have the image hidden and the warning. That way the edit war can come to an end. I think, lets just leave it. We might have a consensus if we leave the page as it is. And technically, the page should just describe the test, and the controversy (these are facts), and leave the interpretation to the reader. What d'ya reckon? MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with a solution that includes the warning as it is, and access to any images with a mouse click. Thank you for your efforts in this debate. Ward3001 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree.Faustian 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just thought about placing a fake image for those who want to know what an inkblot looks like (it was once up, anyone could go through the archives and paste it), and then requiring a click for the actual image, for those who choose to see it. Something like, "Here is an approximation of a Rorschasch inkblot. For an actual image click here (warning: doing so may invalidate the test for you).Faustian 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. — DIEGO talk 21:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!Faustian 02:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that such a self-made (fake) image is a personal interpretation by the person who created it of what the essentials of "a Rorschach card" are. Such original artwork violates WP:OR. Regards, High on a tree 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the definition of original research: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" This definition would not apply to an approximation of an image clearly labelled as such. The image (as far as I can tell, I could be wrong) was not self-made by a wikipedian: [2]. The image itself is not an unpublished fact, argument, concept, statement, or theory. Nor is it an unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that by "fake image" you did not mean Image:Inkblot.svg (the blackened version of the original first card, which should not be used for other reasons), but an image created entirely independent of the original Rorschach cards, for example by just dropping some ink on a sheet of paper, folding it in half and then deciding that the result "looks like" the original Rorschach cards, and thus is a good substitute. (For an example, see this mock Rorschach card.) The point here is that the original cards, even if they were generated by a partly random process, were certainly results of a nontrivial research effort by Hermann Rorschach - if only because he selected blots which he deemed useful for this kind of testing and discarded others. (By the way; the assumption that these images are creative works above the threshold of originality is the very basis for the copyright claims by Hogrefe/Verlag Hans Huber, which until 1992 were perfectly valid to my understanding). Creating a new image and inserting it into the article with a caption such as "inkblot similar to those used in the Rorschach test" amounts to the statement "The response to the question 'What do you see on this image' can be used by a trained psychologist to derive conclusions about the patient's personality", which is certainly an unpublished statement, as no researcher has employed this image before.
This also applies to Image:Rorschach_black_on_white.png: As for The image [...] was not self-made by a wikipedian you are probably correct, it is an example output of a programm called "gnu.app.displayhack.Rorschach 0.1" available on the program's home page. But in the definition you quoted, "published" is to be understood in the sense of Wikipedia:Original research#Reliable_sources, and that web page certainly doesn't meet these requirements - it seems to be just a little fun project of some Java programmer (without a degree in psychology or such), who does not seriously claim that this image could be a substitute for the original Rorschach images. (The program has a myriad of different possible parameter settings determining the output; deciding which give the best "approximation" would already be OR. And even if we were to entirely ignore the OR issue here, I would say that this pixel cloud has a very different appearance, even a layperson can instantly recognize it as being in different "style" than the original ten cards.)
Regards, High on a tree 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see such a consensus. As noted in more detail below, the Javascript trick employed in the current article version has severe disadvantages (for example, it violates Wikipedia's goal to create content that is reusable in other media). — This is part of a single edit by User:High on a tree at 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC). It was fragmented when Faustian replied.
Can you please provide a citation of this goal? If this is indeed the case, than this is a good point which nevertheless needs to be balanced against the numerous arguments of not including the image openly, of allowing the reader the choice of whether or not to see the image. For me, in case of conflict betweenthe two, the importance of having the right internet wiki overrides concerns about what the page will look like in other media.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you have a look at the links that I gave below? (I didn't want to repeat myself here; I also didn't mention the argument again that even on the web people with Javascript-disabled browsers won't be able to see the image.) Regards, High on a tree 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The link given does not indicate that "Wikipedia's goal" is to create content that is useable in other media. It describes a project that involves doing so, stating:
"In 2003, Jimmy Wales proposed making an offline release version of Wikipedia. This group was formed in late 2004 to meet this challenge. Our work involves identifying and organizing articles, and improving/maintaining a core set. Our work does not hinder the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles, but rather it supports that work by providing additional organization...Our strategy has been intensely debated, but the group has reached a consensus. We elected not to follow the German model. Instead we chose to start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there. We have produced a small test version (Version 0.5), with the goal of releasing larger collections of articles in due course. The next general release is generically referred to as "Release Version" while our first "official" comprehensive release will be called Version 1.0."
There is no mention of the Rorschach article being among those slated for use in other media. Your concern about those whose browsers have disabled Java-script is inded legitimate. Do you have an idea of what percentage of users this would apply to (I'm assuming that is is a small minority)? In that case we would need to discuss balancing the best page for the majority of users versus taking care of the minority. best, Faustian 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are trying to portray this as a one-off freak idea by Jimbo Wales. Offline or print editions have been described as a necessary consequence of Wikipedia's vision of "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" given the fact that the majority of the world's population does not have Internet access or even computer access. But this is getting offtopic. If you need to have guidelines quoted on you, have a look at WP:ASR#Think_about_print, which says Don't forget, we want to make the creation of a print version of Wikipedia as easy as possible.
Regards, High on a tree 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, while I appreciate your good-natured tone in a heated debate, I personally think that "let those people just have their way, even if their reasons are wrong" is not a good motto for writing an encyclopedia. It amounts to bowing to whoever is arguing most vociferously instead of basing the decision on the best arguments. High on a tree 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (fragment)
Well, looking at the history, the most stable periods with this page was when a compromise image was up. A consensus needs to be reached.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course the arguments against showing the picture need to be listened to seriously, but that doesn't mean that invalid arguments (which started with falsely calling the license information on the image page "a blatant lie" and making phony claims about the image's copyright status) should be accepted. High on a tree 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (fragment)
Certainly.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should go back to the solution which existed until the beginning of September. Regards, High on a tree 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem was that the image up at the beginning of September was not the result of any consensus but rather it was the version that happened to have been frozen in the midst of an edit war. Prior to that edit war, a black-and-white shaded approximation of the first card, a compromise between no image vs. the real image, had been up for about a month (following another edit war). That month with the solid black compromise image was probably the longest period of stability on this page. The reason for that stability is exactly because it was a compromise version. As long as some extremists try to erase any image while other extremists put up the actual image with no warning, it seems that there will be edit wars.Faustian 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "The problem is that such a self-made (fake) image is a personal interpretation by the person who created it of what the essentials of "a Rorschach card" are. Such original artwork violates WP:OR."
I don't agree. Posting a picture of a symmetrical inkblot in order to show readers what an inkblot (not necessarily a "Rorschach inkblot") looks like does not violate WP:OR. The inkblot need not be an "interpretation" of the important features of a Rorschach inkblot. The caption could be written to make it very clear that it was just a picture of an inkblot, with no direct relation to the Rorschach. The important point is that it would look roughly and qualitatively similar to an average viewer. I think the proposal is an elegant solution that should satisfy those who seek to develop a multimedia-rich article and those who, due to ethical concerns, wish to keep the actual Rorschach image hidden. — DIEGO talk 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A psudo-Rorschach inkblot does not convey the same information as a real Rorschach inblot.Geni 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with posting the picture

My window of free time is closing for a few days, so I hope that someone else can further develop this argument further. Setting aside the issue of copyright which may have expired, the actual Rorschach inkblots are supposed to be sold or used only by professionals. Psychologists and, presumably, psychiatrists also are bound by a professional code of ethics not to disclose such images. So, whoever obtained these cards and posted them on the internet either did so through a violation of their professional ethical code (if they are a professional), or obtained the cards through fraud (such as by ordering or buying them through claiming to be a professional), theft (or "borrowing" without permission from a professional or clinic), or some such reason. Therefore, by having an image obtained in this manner on a wiki page, would not that make wikipedia comparable to a person knowingly driving a stolen car? (Even if he's not the one who actually committed the theft) Wouldn't that be wrong?Faustian 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stealing a car is illegal. Ignoring the various codes is not. In addition you missed inheritance, the requirements of deposit libraries and acquisition through bankruptcy as methods of acquiring the cards that would fall within the codes. There are other ways.Geni 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
My analogy wasn't with respect to legality, it was with respect to the seediness of the situation. In wild 1990's Russia there weren't yet laws on the books against driving cars stolen in other countries (there were stories about tourists "shopping" for cars in people's driveways in Berlin, and having them delivered in a few weeks). Today it is still almost impossible to recover stolen cars there, even if they have been identified, once someone has registered them in Russia [3]. What would you think about doing something like that? Is it acceptable because it's legal?
Do you think that wikipedia is such that it is acceptable to post an image that was very likely obtained through unsavoury means such as ethical violations or fraud? The loopholes you've presented seem pretty rare and even then have an unsavoury character - taking advantage of someone's death to do something that would have been unethical for the deceased to do while alive.Faustian 12:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No crime has been committed at any point and I don't view the breach of this particular part of the Psychologist's code to be unethical. Since copyright terms are often based in the life of the subject we take advantage of people's death all the time.Geni 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because you personally, do not believe that breaching a part of one's professional ethics code is unethical for you personally, does not mean that a breach has not occurred.Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So what? This is wikipedia. We are not censored for the benifit of professional codes or principles.Geni 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The example of the magic trick is not an ethical code nor is that of depicting Mohammad. Note that the article on Islam doesn't include a single image of Mohammad, presumably not to offend people or subject innocent believer to what they consider to be blasphemy. Thanks for leading to this example. Faustian 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
magcians frequently describe the magicians code as an ethical code. the equiverlent of the islam article in this case would be the Psychology article. Muhammad which would be a more equive case contains a number of drawn depictions.Geni 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So do you think that psychologists or medical doctors are equivalent to magicians? Would a doctor or psychologist being unethical strike you as no more troubling than a magician doing so? Faustian 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The equivalent of the Islam article would not be the psychology article. The Rorschach's place within psychology is not nearly as central as Muhammad's place within Islam so your anaolgy is false. The best analogy is as I stated: despite Muhammad being central to Islam, the Islam article doesn't include his image. Muslims aren't forced to become offended merely by reading about their faith. Anyone wishing to see his image can look up the wikipedia entry about the the prophet himself or the cartoon controversy, etc. rather than about the religion of Islam. The Christianity wikipage has numerous pictures of Jesus, the Islam article contains not a single image of Muhammad. The important difference between Muhammad's image and that of the inkblots, of course, is that forcing someone to see Muhammad's image offends their religious beliefs, while forcing someone to view a Rorschach image compromises the validity of their test should they choose to take it. But anyways, the Islam page does show a precedent of a controversial image not being included. (And remember, I'm not even arguing to go as far as the Islam page and not include the image - I simply want the reader to be given the choice by clicking onto it to reveal it)Faustian 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Faustian, We don't know what the circumstances were. Do you? This argument is a bit like a straw man. There may be all sorts of legitimate ways of coming into possession of these cards, including inheritance, estate sale. I don't have any objections to hiding them from general or unwitting exposure. I do think there is a strong public interest and scholarly research argument for letting people find them if that is what they want to do. I, for instance, can forsee no possible scenario in which I would undertake, or be required to undertake this test (it is not a common test in my country). I might, however, want to include them in a dissertation on another subject. Argue for hiding them on the grounds that an unwilling or unwary "browser" of this article may compromise a future test. Don't make this argument, it's not a good one. MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are two separate arguments, and I am not advocating that one argument about the images is better than another. With respect to the posting of these images being the fruit of someone's violation of ethical violations, you mentioned inheritance or estate sales. The ethical codes certainly include having appropriate plans in case of death. For example, there are specific codes dealing with the destruction or removal of patients' personal information in case of death. It's not acceptable for a psychologist to, say, write in his or her will that they want information on patient X to be sent to the media or published in a book after the psychologist's death. The code of ethics states that test integrity should be maintained. If provisions are not made to prevent the the tests from falling into the wrong hands (i.e., someone who will then post them on the internet) than that is clearly a violation of the ethical code, no different from the psychologist who has private patient information broadcast to the media posthumously. The fact that he faces no consequences for this ethical breach does not alter the fact that the action itself was unethical.
Perhaps I haven't been creative enough, but I cannot think of a way for the image to have been posted that did not ultimately (even if not by the person who actually posted the image) have as its cause some sort of ethical violation on the part of a practitioner, or some sort of fraud or theft by an unauthorized user. Anecdotally, research even if helpful is not used if obtained unethically, and I believe that legally police cannot use evidence even if helpful, if it had been obtained wrongly - "fruits from the poison tree". Is it acceptable for Wikipedia to post or use images obtained through someone's ethical breach, fraud or theft?Faustian 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Rapid active external rewarming in accidental hypothermia J. P. Fernandez; R. A. O'Rourke; G. A. Ewy JAMA, Vol. 212, Issue 1, 153-156, April 6, 1970. Cites some of the most classicaly unethical research in history. So your Anecdote would be incorrect.04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)
Was that research cited unethical at the time that it was conducted? If it conformed to past ethical standards but not modern ones it is okay to cite it. The ethical breach of revealing the images has been around for decades, certainly longer than wikipedia.Faustian 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al decided it was unethical at the time. And it is a breach of a professional code not ethics. Makeing up your own system and calling it ethics is the kind of thing relgious cults do. OF course we ignored them as well.Geni 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So - you are comparing professional ethics codes to the dictates of religious cults? Is that where you have to go when you have to admiot that something represents a violation of professional ethics?Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends to the degree to which people attempt to inforce them. The Royal Society of Chemistry has a code of ethics of sorts but they don't go to the degrees you claim that Rorschach followers go to in order to supress information.Geni 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, look, I think I've made myself clear. The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that. MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's okay to post those images given the ethical dilemna than I agree 100%, that this is the best way of doing so. It places the infromation out there while givign people the choice about whether or not they want to see it. I don't know Wikipedia rules well enough to draw a conclusion about the admissibility of including images when those images were very likely acquired through dubious means. It doesn't sound very nice to me, but perhaps it is acceptable. But it's a fact that hadn't been emphasized on this discussion and it seems like an important point to consider. The images appeared on the internet through someone violating their ethical code, or through fraud (getting the cards by presenting oneself as a professional to the seller when one wasn't) or theft (taking them from someone's office or using them without permission).Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the very unlikely event that the cards may have come into someone's possession without there having been a breach of ethics, I can see a number of possible scenarios.

Can you describe some possible scenarios?Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the circumstances are, and they may have been obtained unethically, but there are possible scenarios in which that doesn't hold. Since we don't know the circumstances the argument is just speculation. The chain of ethical responsibility is a very big argument (see Peter Singer and here [4] search for "chain"), which I don't think can be made with much force in this case. MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't listen to the broadcast. However the chain seems straightforward. Someone posts the unethically obrained image on the internet. Someone else puts this image on the wikipedia page. In Mosacow, buying and legally retaining a car stolen from Berlin is more complex.Faustian 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, in order for a crime to be committed there has to be some pay-off. You are comparing against car theft. Obviously there is a gain in that situation. I can't see what the payoff is in posting the inkblots on the net for free. Secondly, and I'm only speculating here F, but lets say a psychologist dies suddenly, without warning. Lets also say he doesn't have any close family. He leaves no will. His patient records are destroyed, but his books and effects are sold to pay off his debts. Anybody could buy this stuff. There would be no requirement on the auctioneers to ensure that only other psychologists bought the blots. Somebody might have bought them, maybe in a box of other books, out of curiousity. That's just one possible scenario. The chain of resonsibiltiy argument goes that guilt by association has to stop somewhere.

Alan Saunders: And presumably there is somewhere, an end to a chain of responsibility? I'm thinking about the animal liberationists in Britain who are opposed to animal experimentation, and for them the chain of responsibility seems to go to a hell of a long way, like the pub that serves drinks to somebody who works at a laboratory where animal experimentation is carried on. There must be an end to the chain of responsibility somewhere, mustn't there? Peter Singer: In some theoretical sense, I guess, if the publican could make a difference by saying, I'm not going to serve drinks to you because you're torturing animals for a living, then that's what the publican ought to do. But I'm certainly not defending what everybody in the animal rights movement does, and I think some of the people, in Britain particularly, who've been opposed to animal experimentation, have actually done the movement a disservice by targeting people who in the general public's view are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and sometimes the families of people. And that just doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help the cause of animals, in fact it harms the cause of animals, plus it's nasty to children perhaps, who live in fear because their father works in the lab, so I certainly don't want to defend that. And again, it's the difference between what you ought to do in a practical matter of protest and whether in some theoretical sense, you can say that someone bears some responsibility for something. I don't know. That's quite different from saying whether they ought to be made a target of a protest because of that.

So for Wikipedia, it is not at all clear that some ethical breach has taken place, and even if it had, given that the blots are already on the net, it serves no moral good for us not to make them available to those who will not be disadvantaged by seeing them because (like me) they will never undertake the test. Our not displaying them will have no effect on that original poster, whether they were acting unethically or not. MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Here is a scenario with no ethical or legal breach in which the cards could be posted on Wikipedia. A licensed Psychologist, who practices in a home office, takes reasonable steps to ensure that testing materials are used only by him (i.e., he keeps them in a locked desk drawer, etc.). The psychologist dies of a sudden heart attack while away from home (never having violated APA ethics guidelines). His family decides to move shortly after his death. While packing up his father's office, the psychologist's teenage son happens upon the Rorschach cards. The son has absolutely no ethical or legal obligation to keep those cards hidden (the thought doesn't even occur to him). So, after ensuring that the images on the cards are actually in the public domain in the U.S., he scans the cards and uploads them to Wikimedia commons (with servers based in the U.S.) in order to do what he can to build and enhance an encyclopedia that is currently seriously lacking in the visual department (have you seen Encarta and Britanica lately?). Where is the ethical/legal breach? Who has neglected any obligation? The images were neither obtained unethically nor as a result of custodial neglect (the owner died). If there is no violation, and you can't prove that the image was not uploaded under these (or similarly innocent) circumstances, then the argument is really pointless. — DIEGO talk 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there's another scenario. Given that the cards were first published 80 odd years ago, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of sets out there in the community, owned or obtained by non-psychologists in perfectly ethical ways. WP is not condoning or supporting any breach of ethics by publishing them. The only argument that stands up is the spoiler one. So they should be made available to those who won't be affected by that spoiler. MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meyer, G. et al. (2001) Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist Feb Vol 56(2) 128-165

Please come to a consensus

I see in the page history that the image has been edited and reverted over 50 times over the past few weeks. Please use the talk page to discuss, as you are doing above. Further reverts may result in this article being protected from editing. AecisBrievenbus 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been protected, to prevent further edit warring over the display of the image. Use this talk page to come to a consensus. AecisBrievenbus 12:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

This is not the place to debate the validity of Rorshach test. The viewer should be given a choice to see the image, with a warning, as is the case now. I hope when the page is unprotected nobody tries to change the way the image is again. Amit@Talk 14:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest changing the warning to "...may invalidate the test for you" Amit@Talk 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The validity (or lack thereof) of the Rorschach is central to the argument to censor the picture. If the test itself is not a valid measure of anything, then censoring the picture is pointless, because only invalid, essentially worthless results will be "compromised". — DIEGO talk 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I repeat my comment above: You apparently have little or no knowledge of the psychometric properties of the Rorschach. First year graduate students have more understanding than you have demonstrated. Ward3001 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the International Rorschach Foundation themselves are showing all ten images on the web

The above discussions on whether the article should include the image are quite lengthy, but it seems to me that a few arguments still haven't been mentioned:

  • The central argument against showing the image violates WP:NPOV. It consists of the claim that readers who see it suffer personal damage. (Almost every Wikipedian who has taken part in this discussion or edited the article has been "victimized" in this way; it might be worthwile to stop for a moment and reflect for a moment on how large this damage to one's personal life really is.) But in fact - as noted above and in the article - this is clearly a view that is not universally held, in fact, there are organizations who claim that it is even beneficial for individuals to have invalidated the test for themselves by reading about it and seeing the images beforehand. For example the "Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center", whose page is linked in the article, says "If you don't wish to take the Rorschach test (and we suggest NOT taking it in the context of a custody dispute if at all possible), tell the psychologist that you are familiar with the Rorschach test, have read about the test and have seen the inkblots." Now it would be POV to base Wikipedia editorial decisions on this view ("OMG we have to save people from this quack test by showing them the image"), but it is equally POV to base them on the opposite view ("OMG we have to preserve this life-saving test for people by not showing them the image"). — High on a tree 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (fragment of original edit)
But somebody can argue both ways on any kind of potential damage caused by reading a type of wikipedia page. Is there a wiki page detailing the steps necessary to produce crystal meth (someone can say the knowledge can be helpful or harmful)? How about one describing how to build a pipe bomb? How to pick a lock? How to steal personal identity? Etc. etc.Faustian 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Crystal_meth#Synthesis largely meaningless any halfway competent organic chemist could come up with a dozen routes. Lock picking actualy since you bring that up you might want to read Matt Blaze. Then of course we have Nuclear weapon design.Geni 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me just comment that websites devoted to advising parents about the Rorschach in custody disputes are likely to cause the parent more problems because of fallacious information and advice they give. That's not to say that use of any test in a custody dispute isn't controversial, but the advice on the websites is given by people with little knowledge of the test. At best it's inadequate, and in some cases it is simply wrong. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
But I suppose you are not disagreeing with the "Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center"'s statement "Any ethical psychologist will decline to administer the test upon learning [that you are familiar with the Rorschach test, have read about the test and have seen the inkblots], and the issue of the test's validity will be a moot point"?
Apart from that, I am not saying that your opinion is wrong. But it *is* a matter of opinion (yours against theirs); maybe these organizations and the other critics are wrong, or maybe the Rorschach test is worthless and dangerous - I am just saying that per WP:NPOV it is not ours to take sides here, and that is is against NPOV to base our decision about the image on such an opinion. Thus your reply has precisely confirmed my point.
Regards, High on a tree 13:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The damage argument made against the image could also be made against the whole article - certainly reading about the test can also influence the responses. Anybody who has choosen to read this Wikipedia article has already chosen, to some degree, to compromise the validity of the test for themselves, should they take it in the future. — High on a tree 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (fragment of original edit)
Any damage from reading the article is minor compared to viewing the images Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The damage argument is also remarkably at odds with the fact that even the International Rorschach Society has been showing all ten pictures (in shaded, not b/w versions, one even in color) on their web page since at least 2005 [5] - in smaller form lacking some detail, but it is still perfectly possible to look at them and prepare answers to questions that are asked in the actual testing situation. For example, I can look at them and say that no. 4 looks like a motorbike rider from behind, and no.5 resembles a bat upside down. (This is "the" Rorschach organization, an association of professional psychologists founded in 1952, connected with Verlag Hans Huber. It publishes two journals, "Rorschachiana" and "Bulletin of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods". Shouldn't the editors who are criticizing Wikipedia for showing this image first accuse the International Rorschach Society of professional misconduct?) Also, it should be noted that the article claims "The official test is sold only to licensed professionals", but the order form for the test cards on Verlag Hans Huber/Hogrefe's own web site does not mention any such restrictions. In any case the Exner system of scoring is freely availabe in libraries and bookshops all over the world. — High on a tree 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (fragment of original edit)
A key phrase you wrote is "in smaller form". What you see is a distant photo of the blots already miniaturized about tenfold, so the actual amount of reduction is probably about 100 times. I'll acknowledge that I prefer they not be shown that way, but the amount detail not shown is sizeable. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
True, some detail is missing (btw, the image in the article is also much smaller than the original). But the point is that these renditions are large enough to form the kind of associations which comprise the answers in the testing situation (as I demonstrated above), and enable a person to prepare such answers in advance.
If the missing details make a difference, that only means even greater damage to the validity of the test.
The point here is the International Rorschach Foundation is obviously much less concerned about this issue than some Wikipedia editors who nevertheless claim to speak on behalf of the community of professional psychologists.
Regards, High on a tree 13:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because the order form doesn't mention restrictions doesn't mean than that you can actually purchase the Rorschach without proper credentials. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a proof, but it is evidence that you can purchase the cards without producing credentials. On the other hand, does anybody have a reference (or even just evidence) for the claim "The official test is sold only to licensed professionals"? If not, I am going to remove it from the article per WP:V. Regards, High on a tree 12:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is that claim: [6]. On the Pearson Products website, the premier site where psychological tests can be purchased, the Rorschach page [7] (which incidentally features a copyright) under "quick facts" lists the Qualification level as "3". Qualification level 3 [8] is a licensed level psychologist.Faustian 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia strives to create encyclopedic content that can be used in different forms, not only as a web page but also in other forms (as PDF, in print or on DVD). JavaScript tricks like the image show/hide button flatly contradict this goal - even on the web they require a JavaScript enabled browser - and should only be used in the article text when they are absolutely necessary. (The use of show/hide buttons in navigation templates, i.e. outside the main article body, is less controversial, since these templates are mainly used for web navigation.)

Summarily, I think we should go back to the solution from a month ago, before the edit warring started: Include Image:Rorschach1.jpg without the JavaScript code. As noted above, this is already a compromise solution, since from a purely encyclopedic perspective it would be desirable to show all ten cards (and also describe some exemplary responses and their evaluation).

Regards, High on a tree 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made some valid points, but I also think some of your statements are somewhat misleading and/or inadequately explained. Please see my comments within the text you wrote. And finally, let's face it, if someone is unscrupulous enough, he can probably get his hands on a set of Rorschach cards. But I think we're talking about what should be done on Wikipedia, not the lowest common denominator. Ward3001 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be fairly trivial to purchase them through ebay. Otherwise I would assume the british libiary has a copy.Geni 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
See the replies above. As for "lowest common denominator": Sure, but having just one of the ten images in the article is way off from that - describing and revealing the full test would be quite another story. Regards, High on a tree 13:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents. This is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to be informative, neutral, and uncensored. It is not bound by the norms of any professional organization, religion, or nation (except where the servers are hosted or some other nation somehow manages to bring a credible case). This test does not need to be "protected" any more than magic tricks or religious taboos need to be protected. Wikipedia already has a general disclaimer that says that reading it can be harmful to your health or something to that effect. And frankly I don't understand such a big effort to "protect the results" of a test that is so controversial to start with, that it has even been compared with fortune telling and cold reading.[9] Finally, regarding the [show] button, I don't think it's a good solution because it has accessibility problems (it doesn't work without javascript, for example), and IMO goes agains the spirit of the no-disclaimers-in-articles policy. --Itub 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 207.160.240.251

How come no one has metinioned Anne Anastasi's comment about the inkblots? "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." I guess she recognizes a scam when she sees one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.240.251 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this comment from the top of the page and placed it here in (roughly) chronological order with other comments. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring

Please stop editwarring over the image. Use this talk page to come to a consensus. The next revert will result in the article being protected once more. AecisBrievenbus 11:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are not accepted at present. I see no reason for further debate.Geni 14:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the term "spoiler" is appropriate in this context (the Rorschach is not a movie or book) is not resolved, nor are numerous other issues concerning the image. There is no consenus yet on whether or not the image should be here, although an examination of the debates gives an advanatage of one to the side not wanting the image displayed openly, with no warning (hopefully noone brings sockpuppets or meatpuppets into the debate). The current way that the image is handled is a compromise between the various positions. Your numerous attempts to circumvent this have been noted.Faustian 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
as have your ongoing attempts to censor wikipedia.Geni 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
...And the censorship issue has already been discussed, and again no consensus has resulted. The image isn't censored if it's still on the page, just because people are given the choice about wherther or not they want to see it. The current way the image is handled is exactly a compromise between those who indeed want to censor it, and those who want eveyone to be forced to see it, denying them that choice.Faustian 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from those without Javascript enabled not being able to see the image at all and having no choice in the matter -Halo 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In which case the links at the bottom of the page send you to sites where the images are displayed.Faustian 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a links dirrectory. We should not rely on external links to provide information that should be included in the article.Geni 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Geni, you've been an admin since March 2005. You should know better than anyone else that editwarring is not the way to get your point across. If you believe that the image should be displayed in the article, argue your case on this talk page. AecisBrievenbus 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to debate with people who are seriously prepared to claim the the image is more controversial than the whole autofellatio thing and then ignore all evidence to the contry.Geni 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_2&oldid=1092046938"