Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


14

Shrinks Fume Over Wiki's 'Rorschach Cheat Sheet'

Share

(Newser) – Psychologists are seeing red in a row over Rorschach's famous inkblots, the New York Times reports. The original series of 10 inkblot images, whose interpretations are used to gain insight into a viewer's mind, have been posted on Wikipedia along with the most common responses. Psychologists fear that some people may use the site as a "cheat sheet," destroying the test's value as a diagnostic tool, built up over many decades of research.

The images are no longer copyrighted in the US and information on them has long been available. But psychologists worry Wikipedia will tip off many more people to the normal "expected" responses and they won't react honestly to the images. "The more test materials are promulgated widely, the more possibility there is to game it,” warns a leading psychologist. Subjects knowing the Rorschach "answers" won't bring about wrong diagnoses, but will “render the results meaningless," he said.

A series of inkblot images similar to this one form the basis of Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach's famous test.
A series of inkblot images similar to this one form the basis of Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach's famous test.   (Shutter Stock)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

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. Just don’t pretend you are doing anything other than harming scientific research.
- "Faustian," a Wikipedia poster

Our ethics code that governs the behavior of psychologists talks about maintaining test security. We wouldn’t be in favor of putting the plates out where anyone can get hold of them.
- Steve J. Breckler, an American Psychological Association execcutive

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
OFF THE GRID
11.24.09
Murdoch and Microsoft: The Mice Are Trying to Roar
11.23.09
Books Are Bad for You
14 comments
VIEWING:
 
anchower
Jul 29, 09 2:39 AM CDT
I can't believe they're still using freaking inkblots. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
westonism
Jul 29, 09 3:17 AM CDT
OK, I'll take the bait. Our brains haven't changed in tens of thousands of years. They should still be as effective today as they were ten years ago.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
anchower
Jul 29, 09 4:14 AM CDT
Au contraire: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050909221043.htm ("Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution--the growth of brain size and complexity--is likely still going on," said lead researcher for both papers Bruce Lahn, PhD, assistant professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.") Also, how do you know the Rorschach test was ever "effective"? And anyway, CRT TVs still work. Does that mean they're as good as LCD TVs?
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
dearlizzie
Jul 29, 09 10:02 AM CDT
One of the biggest recurring points of the Wiki article, throughout several sections, is how unreliable the inkblot tests are. They appear to be al but worthless. Even the MMPI is dependent on the skill, intelligence and honesty of the tester.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Kookey90
Jul 29, 09 3:43 AM CDT
Amazing, no matter which of the Rorschach's inkblots I see, they all remind me of a monkey on an elephants back. Somebody help me, please! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2

View all 14 comments »

LEAVE A
COMMENT Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 

Related Newser Stories

160 Stories

 Contributors Flee 
 Wikipedia's Stricter Rules 

Effort to combat bias, vandalism has thinned ranks by 49K

Nov 23, 09 10:18 AM CST
(Newser) - In an attempt to rein in the lawlessness and veiled opinion running rampant among its volunteer editors, Wikipedia may have shot itself in the foot. In the first 3 months of this year, there's been something of a stampede of contributors exiting the crowdsourced online encyclopedia, leading to a net... More »

MORE ABOUT:
Internet • Wikipedia • Web 2.0 • editor • online encyclopedia • restrictions • rules • crowdsourcing • contributor • participation

 Speed Shrinking Offers Quicker Fixes 

... And promotes shrinks' books, in 180-second encounters

Nov 14, 09 5:35 AM CST
(Newser) - Freud must be shuddering in his grave, but that doesn't bother Susan Shapiro, the author of Speed Shrinking and the cheerful organizer of speed-dating-style therapy sessions for New Yorkers. On a recent evening, 200 talk-therapy-seekers stood in line at a lecture hall for their turn to spill their problems and... More »

MORE ABOUT:
mental health • New York • Manhattan • therapy • psychoanalysis • psychiatrist • psychologist • Speed dating • Speed shrinking

 Why Women Have Sex 

Psychologist discusses female sexuality, and what men can do to get ahead

Oct 6, 09 4:50 PM CDT
(Newser) - Psychologists Cindy Meston and David Buss, authors of the 2007 study “Why Humans Have Sex,” have completed a second go-round, this time focused on women only. They come up with 237 reasons, and though they're not enumerated in the article, Time asks Buss for some highlights:
  • Besides
... More »

MORE ABOUT:
sex • psychology • sexuality • revenge • dating • female sexuality

160 Stories


US  •  Media  •  Science & Health 
TwitterFollow @NewserUS on Twitter

 
Wikipedia • psychology • psychologist • diagnostic test • Rorschach test

from our news partners