Slashdot Mirror

the Rorshach ink blots. Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.

No, only on slashdot, that's not a large enough group to count (although it may be over-represented among those who see psychologists).

every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me? I don't see anything. Just ink on folded paper. I've stared at these things and my answer never changes. because you know, its still an ink blot.

"claiming to see nothing at all will definitely be held against you in terms of Rorschach scoring, and may result in a finding of "retardation" or a possible mental disorder"

the Rorshach ink blots. Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public,

No, you slashdotted them. The American Psychological Association will thank you, I am sure.

Bzzt, wrong. They're mostly genitals.

the Rorshach ink blots. Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.

AHHHH!!! My eyes! The goggles. They do nothing!

the Rorshach ink blots. Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.

Seriously though, there are a million associative tests, I didn't think anyone even used the original Rorschach any more except to discuss it in beginning psychology classes.

Too bad the facts don't meet your female chauvinist storyline:

Here's those "deadbeat dads". They account for 11% of those custodial mothers who do not receive child support. 11%. With all the ballyhoo, you would think that these make up the majority. Instead, the represent just slightly more than one-tenth of the total.
How about those fathers who run and hide? Well, they are part of that 11% figure. They make up almost 6% of those who do not pay child support. Not quite the exodus that we are led to believe occurs. If we look at the whole population of custodial mothers, we see that "deadbeat dads" account for only 7% of the population. Only 3.5% of fathers cannot be located (which are included in the 7% figure). These are not the figures we think about when we see "deadbeat dad" articles bannered across newspaper headlines.
It is time to stop making policies based on myths and distortions. It is time to recognize that single fathers are like any other group of people out there; the vast majority of them are good, loving people who will happily care for and love their children. Why have we been so willing to believe the worst of these dads? Why have we accepted the negative images without question?

Oh, and a higher percentage of mothers owing child support are "dead beats" than fathers.

And I put "dead beats" in quotes because these people aren't actually dead beats, but dead broke. The majority of those who don't pay, can't pay because they just don't have the money.

How about this - as soon as a majority of non-custodial dads start doing more in terms of child support than legally mandated by the courts, then we'll have sympathy for how "unfair" the family court system is.

No, how about THIS: have automatic consequences for interfering with visitation rights. If a non-custodial parent (usually the father) falls behind on his child support payments, he faces garnished wages, having his car towed or license suspended, or even arrest. And states are very serious about collecting child support as they get matching federal funds. Whereas the automatic penalties for interfering with visitation are: jack and shit, and Jack left town. A custodial parent has the state at his or back for collecting support. A non-custodial parent can look forward to endless court appearances and attorneys fees to enforce visitation.

You have the right to your own opinion "paul", but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And the fact is that fatherhood is real long on responsibilities yet real short on rights. And that's bullshit, straight up.

Nope. Most people see the same things in ink blot tests. This page puts it, "There are several responses that almost everyone gives; mentioning these shows the psychologist you're a regular guy." Because the original 10 inkblots were reandom to begin with, it does not matter how many random variations M$ decides to use. They are going to get the same kinds of answers.

The article didn't say it will be the most secure password ever, is specifically said that it will be a stronger password than most people use, and that people will be more likely to remember it without writing it on a post-it note 'hidden' by being stuck to the underside of a desk.

Duh, passphrases are like that. Just about any sheme using passphrases is better than asking people to come up with a random word, the M$ default. The silly inkblot detracts from the randomness of the phrase and that was the point. The big gappeing holes that Microsoft is famous for defeat any and all actions the user might take. It's dishonest of Microsoft to even use the word "security" to talk about their junk.

Uh, you do know how inkblots are made, don't you?

The actual test is kept secret so that people can't see it in advance. Publishing it online can get your ass sued and the actual cards cost about $75. This site examines all the different cards, what they look like, what answers you should get, etc. It's a fascinating read and will show you how crappy of a test this is. They include images of what the blots actually look like but hollowed out to avoid law suit.

"We show you a bunch of computer generated inkblots," said Simon. "We ask you to look at the inkblot, see whatever you see in the inkblot, and type a short abbreviation of what you see. The first and last letter works well.

Of course it works, well sort of. Passphrases are easy to remember, that's why they work so well. They could have used any kind of clue and might want to consider that because the things people think of on their own ARE NOT RANDOM, especiall for ink blots. "There are several responses that almost everyone gives; mentioning these shows the psychologist you're a regular guy." So, I'm afraid that these inkblot tests won't be any better than pet names and the other common things in people's heads.

The Microsoft PR department's discovery and promotion passphrases, however, is a welcome innovation. Keep working, but be careful. The easier you make it for users to be unpredictable, the more difficult you make it to blame the user for holes in your code.

Wouldn't only insane people see something other than inkblots. This would mean that everyone's password will be "inkblot".

Oh wait, this is MS. Built from the ground up for insane security.

Phrenology was once also accepted as a science.

Here's a site with lots of humorous* examples of the misuse of psychological tests.

Or you can read about what many think is real science, polygraphy.

There may, in fact, be a way to explore psychology in an empirical and scientfic manner. But I don't think we're anywhere near that stage yet, and I am bothered by the notion that people's livelihoods are affected by the latest fads in psychology.

Even, assuming we reach the point where one can be plugged into a machine that can empirically measure our worth as humans, I would hope that such uses would be outlawed for any purposes other than treatment of individuals. I don't want to live in Gattaca or Huxley's Brave New World.

* Humorous only because they didn't happen to me. They're actually quite sad and frightening.

Ha! That prompted me to do a google search on the Rorschach Test and I got this link about what psychologists are looking for during a Rorschach. That is definitely science at its best :)

Reminds me of the joke from "What about Bob":

The psychatrist has a patient, he draws a circle and says "What do you think of when you see this?" He says "Sex" He draws a picture of a tree and says "What do you think of that one?" He says "Sex" He draws a picture of a car, a house "Sex, sex, sex" The doctor says "You know you're obsessed with sex" And the patient says "Well you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures."

10. Calls to answering machines are fair game in every State in the country. The courts have taken the position that when you leave a message on an answering machine, you know it is being recorded, period. If your ex leaves a nasty or threatening message on your answering machine, you may use it in court without any restrictions. (Whether or not the court will listen to it is another story.)