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 think the doubt thrown on the validity of the tests is all over the place anyway. Why not just let the tests out and end the debate there?
The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense. It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting. The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".
This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.
... 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.
Thread should end right here. While the Rorschach test does have some limited scientific validity, it doesn't deserve to be as widespread as it is. The test's "effectiveness" relies on exactly the same psychological blindspot that fortune telling does. Wikipedia isn't hampering the effectiveness of anything that isn't already broken.
Not a typewriter
> > 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.
Actually, speaking as someone who administered the Rorschach many times in a previous life (before turning to coding), I'd say you're wrong. It certainly doesn't have the psychometric characteristics of a good personality test, but it does have considerable empirical data to aid in its interpretation. It's nowhere near the validity and reliability of instruments like the MMPI or NEO PI-R, but it does have its uses --especially when assessing those who might try to fool a psychologist using these more face-valid psychological measures.
Ask me about my sig!
The Rorschach test is a holdover from the bad old days of psychology when it was little more scientific than alchemy was in its day.
There's this fascinating science called psychology that tells us why double-blind studies are valuable. I think you'd like it.
What the hell was this supposed to mean? His whole point was that there are no double-blind studies supporting your point. Turning around and saying double-blinds are important is not a retort.
Modern psychology is rather different from psychology in the first part of the 20th century. The Rorscach belongs firmly in the latter.
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.