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?"
I thought they made those randomly. If there are only ten of them, that seems to indicate that there are a few certain "correct" answers, which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now, doesn't it?
There, I fixed their complaint.
If they are already in the public domain, won't the kind of people who would want to see them be able to see them? The fact that they might be on wikipedia could make it easier, but they will probably be on google -- which will make it only marginally more difficult.
If they're in the public domain, then they're in the public domain, and that ends it. I'm sure the APA can come up with some new, copyrighted ink blot tests. Perhaps they could involve images of Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard in various disturbing poses.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If these images are posted by wikipedia, they are rendered utterly useless. If one assumes that the chances are high that people will (now) come across these images elsewhere and it that could contribute to misdiagnostics, this is not only fine, it is the responsible thing to do.
Publishing them on wikipedia would go a long way into forcing people to produce a new batch of test images (preferably a thousand of them or so), which is the responsible thing to do.
"since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test"
They were ineffective the day they were invented. This is VooDoo science it's best, and public exposure of it as a sham is long over do.
This stuff isn't even being taught anymore.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity just doesn't work.
Perry Bible Fellowship is almost as good a cultural touchstone as the Simpsons... but goes places that broadcast TV isn't allowed.
... because if they aren't on wikipedia, then nobody will ever find them on the internet and the images will be safe forever!
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Back in college, my psyc prof spent some time going over those "personality" screenings and directly told us how to pass. He in effect, gave us the answer key (for those of us taking notes) on how to present ourselves via test results. His statements about how the scoring is done already invalidated the test. He also covered multi-colored ink blots and told us how to handle those too.
But despite what I know, 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.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The Wikipedia intelligentsia won't even carry spoiler alerts, because that could lead to "censorship", and is somehow "hard to define" (seems like the word "reveal" would be the main tip to me, in the same way as "like" or "as" denotes similes). But then again, they were able to censor the journalist kidnapping stuff, since the ends justify the means. So, who knows?
You were really really close...
1. Get a series of inkblots together
2. Gather and correlate data on how healthy people describe blots
3. Gather and correlate data on how people with known problems describe blots
4. Show inkblots to patients
5. See how their results line up with previous correlations
6.1 Verify validity of inkblots with strong correlation thus establishing the utility of the inkblots
6.2 Sell to to psychiatrists/psychologists as a diagnostic tool
7 profit
Or conversely
6.2 Doctor uses statistical results on real patient.
6.3 Results help to diagnose patient.
6.4 Payment from patient for services rendered leads to:
7. profit
No. You simply have no perspective or any real understanding.
Academic and intellectual freedom are what has allowed you and
your forebears to make it out of childhood and to breeding age.
Without free inquiry and the open exchange of ideas, the progress
of the last half millenium would never have happened. You would
not be here to propose bad ideas.
Similar progress in the future is threatened by any selfish small
group of society that abuses high sounding phrases for their own
benefit. This isn't just about the practice of psychaitry. It's
about science and society in general.
If the Rorschact test can't stand the light of day then it's of no real value.
It's time to adapt. "smart people" would have seen this coming and made accomodations.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Largely so, in the original method.
Nowadays, generally you aren't measuring what the person sees(a dog vs tits), but the manner of their perception. Are they vague or specific, how closely it resembles the inkblot, or does the person give motives to whatever he sees(dog vs growling dog).
While nobody is exactly the same, our brain structure shares some commanality and the perception:disfunction pairings can be correlated within genetic and cultural groups(can't see a giraffe if you just walked out of the Amazon outback).
The human perceptions system is greatly affected by other brain functions, such as in schizophrenia where drawings may become wildly stylized, e.g. this series of cat paintings that start out normal and end up looking like fractals as the disease goes on. (Has anyone disproved this yet? Induced symptoms through TCMS seemed to validate it)
The downside is that it is still largely subjective. There have been some improvements(saying something looks like underwear doesn't make automatically make you a perv anymore), but as long as the scoring varies between testers(which it does) it is just as open to misinterpretation and manipulating as using autonomic responses to indicate veracity.
Similarly, any test that is broken by foreknowledge of the test is equally broken as a test that relies on the subject to be completely truthful.
.
TLDR: it's bullshit, but it can be useful bullshit, like simplified models of the atom.
See quote in signature.
Seriously, even without having searched for the blots previously, you just can't grow up without seeing a few of them in movies and such. So, if the test requires secrecy to work, it has failed a long time ago.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
> Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.
Could we have an example of an "illegitimate" reason?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest. There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test. Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem. Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.
In most countries you can have your civil rights removed on the basis of psychological testing and diagnoses. It can affect the outcome of court cases, education and employment, gun rights, drivers licensing, even up to forcible detention and medication. Most of those do not even require a conviction against you. Psychologists and psychiatrists have no right to secret procedures. They have been handed too much power for that to be a viable option.
If they wish to have secret procedures, then it ought to be the law of the land that no diagnoses has any legal effect except it is confirmed by jury.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Apparently they think the public is SO stupid that, the ones who are intent on dodging the test are uncapable of finding access to the test images even now.
there should be an elitism & down to earthness test for scientists to prevent such foolery of mind.
Read radical news here
No, you'd be showing contempt for the test due to a deep-seated fixation with test-avoidance, probably arising from a bad childhood experience with a psychoanalyst, causing you to try to make a fool out of people who want to help you, clearly an anti-social tendency.
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?
It seems to me that this is a fight over superstitions; the strength of the Rorschach test is not that here we have a set of carefully constructed, magical devices such as mankind has never seen before. The basic idea, if I'm not mistaken, is to get the subject to look at them and talk about whatever thoughts are inspired by them. The precise shapes are not important, and you can use any other device in the same way, eg. Tarot cards.
This is incidentally the way Tarot cards make it possible to "see the future" - everybody can predict things, it is just a matter of remembering and thinking about all the facts; by looking at a number of Tarot cards and trying to relate the symbols to your circumstances, you force yourself to think out of the box, thus bringing more of the things you already know into your conscious awareness, which gives you a better basis from which to predict things. Nothing magical about it.
Might be a pain in the arse to the psychologists but surely this *helps* anyone who has seen them. If you're being asked to take one of these test (I have never been in that position) then it suggest that they believe there is a *possibility* you could be psychotic etc. Thus, in any sensible (even psychotic) mind, it's only good sense to make the test fail. I fail to believe that they could ever possibly be a rigourous diagnostic tool anyway and thus this allows the following:
"Now, we're going to be taking an inkblo..." ..."
"Horse, fridge, man driving up a hill,
"Eh?"
"Rorschach, yes?"
"Yes."
"I just invalidated the results of your test, didn't I?"
"Well, yes."
"Good... could we have something a little more rigourous and bit less 'Hollywood' please, if you're going to be seriously analysing me?"
And if the analyst *doesn't* abandon the test at that point? That's probably a good ground for misconduct because even their own representative groups *say* that the test is useless if you've seen the images before.