Rorschach and Wikipedia: The battle of the inkblots

I see turmoil.


In mid-June, the physician and Wikipedia editor posted 10 Rorschach inkblots and the most common interpretations of them at the online encyclopedia, a move that has plunged him into an intense, and at times personal, debate with psychologists who want the 86-year-old evaluation method kept from the public eye.

“People take it very seriously,” Dr. Heilman said during a lull in his shift at Moose Jaw Union Hospital. “They don't want their profession exposed. They want to stay as a secret society.”



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rorschach-and-wikipedia-the-battle-of-the-inkblots/article1235586/

Which is also why I think some spoke of shinning a light to make things better.


Note as of the time of this edit, this post does not show up on my recent post list.

It is not there when I click MyDU

I was an assistant on a documentary crew working in an old Arkham Asylum type hospital that was about to be torn down. I found a whole set of Rorschach cards in one empty room, and have always regretted not taking them with me.

because the more people know about the specifics of the tests, it loses validity.

Of course the Rorschach has always been a dubious psychological instrument.

So says this reference.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/07/31/is-rorschach-inkblot-test-outdated/7467.html

99% of what people think seems to be a inkblot like view of society.

It seems peoples own desires and biases play a major role in filling in their view of all of society and even themselves.

Although I am not sure of the value of those test, I do know that people understanding that they are creating many thoughts by interpretation is a good thing for people to know.

It helps people realize some limitation in 'what they know' and might help them see things from other perspectives.


If someone says its a bat, and someone else says it is a butterfly, and they both argue knowing they are both right, their is a problem that is not about the other person, but a problem each person has. If they can not explain to the other their perspective, and see the other perspective, they really can't discuss the topic.

(Note, many people pretend not to know both perspectives so they can not compromise on what they want for themselves, and so they can waste time making the other side explain and explain, when they really wont admit their real reasons for a thought. Commonly called a disingenuous argument.)

I saw all of them and an analysis on each about 4 or 5 years ago.

I'm amused that this is becoming an issue now.