Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship
GigsVT writes "Editors on Wikipedia are engaged in an epic battle over a few piece of paper smeared with ink. The 10 inkblot images that form the classic Rorschach test have fallen into the public domain, and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice. However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test. Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?"
>in order to interpret the results scientifically
You have to be smoking dope.
There is nothing scientific at all about this claptrap, and there never was.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Almost any educated person can tell you psychology is not a science. Theres no way to "prove" any of it especially when correlation != causation. If psychology was science, than theology would be science as would studying Star Trek be science.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Modern psychology is rather different from psychology in the first part of the 20th century
Amen! For example, back then there was no '1' in the current century number.
Also, if Tom Cruse says psychiatry is quack medicine, it's good enough for me!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The idea is that if the images are widely distributed, they will be useless as a test because virtually everyone will have prior exposure. The test isn't particularly useful for people who are determined to subvert it anyway. It's use is with the majority of people, those who are not trying to dodge a diagnosis.
Perhaps there should be a self-righteousness and jumping-to-conclusions test for Slashdot posters. I bet you could get better than 90% accuracy by simply always returning positive.