Wikipedia engulfed in row over Rorschach tests

The Telegraph ^ | 7/30/2009

[1010RD]

Inkblots allowed otherwise normal people to appear as supersmart mind wizards.

You get more from talking to a loving, normal and mildly sophisticated friend than a psychologist.

100% of the people I met in college getting psych degrees should have been on the couch not in the chair.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ink blots may tell us something of valid concern, like what first tends to flash to a person’s mind. But I would expect the method to advance with science (there are now more advanced ways to determine mental priorities, such as brain activity monitoring), and lead to better engineered tests.

[1010RD]

My understanding of the test is that it is not scientifically applied, the results are often contradictory and the proponents are inconsistent in their analysis.

I believe it is a flawed method and unusable. You'll note that the human mind, through the eye, tries to analyze data and put randomness into order. It is the nature of humans, especially given their divine origins.

That respondents see bats or people on the inkblots is normal and indicates nothing. That some see other things may or may not indicate anything, but possibly more creativity than their peers.

[Future Snake Eater]

lol...no, this:

[null and void]

One can only hope...

[Nevermore]

No one could ever convince me that a Rorschach "test" reveals anything of value, anything that a professional interview wouldn't do ten times better.

I will never be able to hear anything about a Rorschach "test" without thinking of the punchline, "You think I'm obsessed with sex, Doc? You're the one with all the dirty pictures!"