Wikipedia engulfed in row over Rorschach tests

The Telegraph ^ | 7/30/2009

[bruinbirdman]

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, has been drawn into a row over its decision to publish common responses to the 10 Rorschach inkblots.

The plates were created by the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach for his book "Psychodiagnostik," published in 1921. Because they were made more than 90 years ago their US copyright has lapsed.

However, psychologists have complained that publishing the inkblots and responses is the equivalent to putting answers to school exams on the internet.

"The only winners seem to be those for whom this issue has become personal, and who see this as a game in which victory means having their way," one Wikipedia poster named Faustian wrote on Monday, adding, "Just don't pretend you are doing anything other than harming scientific research."

Initially Wikipedia had just one of the inkblots online, but the row intensified in June, when James Heilman, an emergency-room doctor from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, posted images of all 10 plates to the bottom of the article about the test, along with what research had found to be the most popular responses for each.

"I just wanted to raise the bar whether one should keep a single image on Wikipedia seemed absurd to me, so I put all 10 up," Dr.

Heilman said in an interview. "The debate has exploded from there." Psychologists have registered with Wikipedia to argue that the site is jeopardising one of the oldest continuously used psychological assessment tests.

The plates have appeared on other websites, but it was not until they showed up on the popular Wikipedia site that psychologists became concerned.

"The more test materials are promulgated widely, the more possibility there is to game it," said Bruce L. Smith, a psychologist and president of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods, who has posted

[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!"