thelastronin

Rorschach test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Rorschach Test" redirects here. For the band, see Rorschach Test (band).
29%18%6%
The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach
test, with the occurrence of the most
statistically frequent details indicated.[1][2]
The images themselves are only one
component of the test, whose focus is the
analysis of the perception of the images.
29%

18%

6%

The Rorschach test (German pronunciation: [ˈʁoɐʃax]; also known as the Rorschach inkblot test or simply as the Inkblot test) is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex scientifically derived algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning. It has been employed to detect an underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly.[3] The test takes its name from that of its creator, Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach.

In a national survey in the U.S., the Rorschach was ranked eighth among psychological tests used in outpatient mental health facilities.[4] It is the second most widely used test by members of the Society for Personality Assessment, and it is requested by psychiatrists in 25% of forensic assessment cases,[4] usually in a battery of tests that often include the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III.[5] In surveys, the use of Rorschach ranges from a low of 20% by correctional psychologists[6] to a high of 80% by clinical psychologists engaged in assessment services, and 80% of psychology graduate programs surveyed teach it.[7]

Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research,[8] some researchers have raised questions about the objectivity of psychologists administrating the test; inter-rater reliability; the verifiability and general validity of the test; bias of the test's pathology scales towards greater numbers of responses; the limited number of psychological conditions which it accurately diagnoses; the inability to replicate the test's norms; its use in court-ordered evaluations; and the proliferation of the ten inkblot images, potentially invalidating the test for those who have been exposed to them.[9]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
* 2 Method
o 2.1 Features or categories
+ 2.1.1 Content
+ 2.1.2 Location
+ 2.1.3 Determinants
o 2.2 Exner scoring system
o 2.3 Cultural differences
* 3 The ten inkblots
* 4 Prevalence
* 5 Controversy
o 5.1 Test materials
o 5.2 Tester projection
o 5.3 Validity
o 5.4 Reliability
o 5.5 Population norms
o 5.6 Applications
o 5.7 Protection of test items and ethics
* 6 See also
* 7 Notes
* 8 References
* 9 External links

[edit] History
Hermann Rorschach created the Rorschach inkblot test in 1921.

Using interpretation of "ambiguous designs" to assess an individual's personality is an idea that goes back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli. Interpretation of inkblots was central to a game from the late 19th century. Rorschach's, however, was the first systematic approach of this kind.[10]

It has been suggested that Rorschach's use of inkblots may have been inspired by German doctor Justinus Kerner who, in 1857, had published a popular book of poems, each of which was inspired by an accidental inkblot.[11] French psychologist Alfred Binet had also experimented with inkblots as a creativity test,[12] and, after the turn of the century, psychological experiments where inkblots were utilized multiplied, with aims such as studying imagination and consciousness.[13]

After studying 300 mental patients and 100 control subjects, in 1921 Rorschach wrote his book Psychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the inkblot test, but he died the following year. Although he had served as Vice President of the Swiss Psychoanalytic Society, Rorschach had difficulty in publishing the book and it attracted little attention when it first appeared.[14]

In 1927, the newly-founded Hans Huber publishing house purchased Rorschach's book Psychodiagnostik from the inventory of Ernst Bircher.[15] Huber has remained the publisher of the test and related book, with Rorschach a registered trademark of Swiss publisher Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG.[16] The work has been described as "a densely written piece couched in dry, scientific terminology" [17]

After Rorschach's death, the original test scoring system was improved by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others.[18] John E. Exner summarized some of these later developments in the comprehensive system, at the same time trying to make the scoring more statistically rigorous. Some systems are based on the psychoanalytic concept of object relations. The Exner system remains very popular in the United States, while in Europe other methods sometimes dominate,[19][20] such as that described in the textbook by Evald Bohm, which is closer to the original Rorschach system and closer to the original psychoanalysis principles.[citation needed]

[edit] Method

The tester and testee typically sit next to each other at a table, with the tester slightly behind the testee.[21] This is to facilitate a "relaxed but controlled atmosphere". There are ten official inkblots, each printed on a separate white card, approximately 18x24 cm in size.[22] Five inkblots are of black ink, two are of black and red ink and three are multicolored. After the test subject has seen and responded to all of the inkblots (free association phase), the tester then presents them again one at a time in a set sequence for the subject to study: the subject is asked to note where he sees what he originally saw and what makes it look like that (inquiry phase). The subject is usually asked to hold the cards and may rotate them. Whether the cards are rotated, and other related factors such as whether permission to rotate them is asked, may expose personality traits and normally contributes to the assessment.[23] As the subject is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the subject says or does, no matter how trivial.

The general goal of the test is to provide data about cognition and personality variables such as motivations, response tendencies, cognitive operations, affectivity, and personal/interpersonal perceptions. The underlying assumption is that an individual will class external stimuli based on person-specific perceptual sets, and including needs, base motives, conflicts, and that this clustering process is representative of the process used in real-life situations. [24] Methods of interpretation differ. Rorschach scoring systems have been described as a system of pegs on which to hang one's knowledge of personality.[25] The most widely used method in the United States is based on the work of Exner.

Administration of the test to a group of subjects, by means of projected images, has also occasionally been performed, but mainly for research rather than diagnostic purposes.[21]

[edit] Features or categories

The interpretation of the Rorschach test is not based primarily on the contents of the response, i.e., what the individual sees in the inkblot (the content). In fact, the contents of the response are only a comparatively small portion of a broader cluster of variables that are used to interpret the Rorschach data: for instance, information is provided by the time taken before providing a response for a card can be significant (taking a long time can indicate "shock" on the card),[26] as well as by any comments the subject may make in addition to providing a direct response[27]

In particular, information about determinants (the aspects of the inkblots that triggered the response, such as form and color) and location (which details of the inkblots triggered the response) is often considered more important than content, although there is contrasting evidence.[28][29] Popularity (or originality)[30] can also be considered another basic category.[31]

[edit] Content
This section requires expansion.

Content is classified in terms of "human", "nature", "animal", "abstract", etc., as well as for statistical popularity (or, conversely, originality).[32]

More than any other feature in the test, content response can be controlled consciously by the subject, and may be elicited by very disparate factors, which makes it difficult to use content alone to draw any conclusions about the subject's personality; with certain individuals, content responses may potentially be interpreted directly, and some information can at times be obtained by analyzing thematic trends in the whole set of content responses (which is only feasible when several responses are available), but in general content cannot be analyzed outside of the context of the entire test record.[33]

[edit] Location
This section requires expansion.

The basis for the response is usually the whole inkblot, a detail (either a commonly or an uncommonly selected one), or the negative space around or within the inkblot.[34]

[edit] Determinants

Systems for Rorschach scoring generally include a concept of "determinants": these are the factors that contribute to establish the similarity between the inkblot and the subject's content response about it, and they can represent certain basic experiential-perceptual attitudes, showing aspects of the way a subject perceives the world. Rorschach's original work used only form, color and movement; currently, another major determinant considered is shading.[35]

Form is the most common determinant, and is related to intellectual processes; color responses often provide direct insight into emotional life. Shading and movement have been considered more ambiguously, both in definition and interpretation: Rorschach originally disregarded shading (which was originally not even present on the cards, being a result of the print process),[36] and he considered movement as only actual experiencing of motion, while others have widened the scope of this determinant, taking it to mean that the subject sees something "going on".[37]

More than one determinant can contribute to the formation of the subject's percept, and fusion of two determinants is taken into account, while also assessing which of the two constituted the primary contributor (e.g. "form-color" implies a more refined control of impulse than "color-form"). It is, indeed, from the relation and balance among determinants that personality can be most readily inferred.[37]

[edit] Exner scoring system

The Exner scoring system, also known as the Rorschach comprehensive system (RCS),[38] is the standard method for interpreting the Rorschach test. It was developed in the 1960s by Dr. John E. Exner, as a more rigorous system for Rorschach test analysis. It has been heavily validated, and shows high inter-rater reliability.[8][39] In 1969, Dr. Exner published The Rorschach Systems, a concise description of what would be later called the Exner system. Later, Dr. Exner published a study in multiple volumes called The Rorschach: A Comprehensive system, the most accepted full description of the Exner system.

Creation of the new system was prompted by the realization that at least five related, but ultimately different methods were in common use at the time, with a sizeable minority of examiners not employing any recognized method at all, basing instead their judgment on subjective assessment, or arbitrarily mixing characteristics of the various standardized systems.[40]

The key components of the Exner system are the clusterization of Rorschach variables and a sequential search strategy to determine the order in which to analyze them,[41] framed in the context of standardized administration, objective, reliable coding and a representative normative database.[42]

In the system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms.[25]

Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of calculations producing a structural summary of the test data. The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses.

With the Rorschach plates (the ten inkblots), the area of each blot which is distinguished by the client is noted and coded – typically as "commonly selected" or "uncommonly selected". There were many different methods for coding the areas of the blots. Exner settled upon the area coding system promoted by S. J. Beck (1944 and 1961). This system was in turn based upon Klopfer's (1942) work.

As pertains to response form, a concept of "form quality" was present from the earliest of Rorschach's works, as a subjective judgment of how well the form of the subject's response matched the inkblots (Rorschach would give a higher form score to more "original" yet good form responses), and this concept was followed by other methods, especially in Europe; in contrast, the Exner system solely defines "good form" as a matter of word occurrence frequency, reducing it to a measure of the subject's distance to the population average.[43]

[edit] Cultural differences

Comparing North American Exner normative data with data from European and South American subjects showed marked differences in some features, some of which impact important variables, while others (such as the average number of responses) coincide.[44] For instance, texture response is typically zero in European subjects (if interpreted as a need for closeness, in accordance with the system, European would seem to express it only when it reaches the level of a craving for closeness)[45], and there are fewer "good form" responses, to the point where schizophrenia may be suspected if data were correlated to the North American norms.[46] Form is also often the only determinant expressed by European subjects;[47] while color is less frequent than in American subjects, color-form responses are comparatively frequent in opposition to form-color responses; since the latter tend to be interpreted as indicators of a defensive attitude in processing affect, this difference could stem from a higher value attributed to spontaneous expression of emotions.[45]

The differences in form quality are attributable to purely cultural aspects: different cultures will exhibit different "common" objects (French subjects often identify a chameleon in card VIII, which is normally classed as an "unusual" response, as opposed to other animals like cats and dogs; in Scandinavia, "Christmas elves" (nisser) is a popular response for card II, and "musical instrument" on card VI is popular for Japanese people),[48] and different languages will exhibit semantic differences in naming the same object (the figure of card IV is often called a troll by Scandinavians and an ogre by French people).[49] Many of Exner's "popular" responses (those given by at least one third of the North American sample used) seem to be universally popular, as shown by samples in Europe, Japan and South America, while specifically card IX's "human" response, the crab or spider in card X and one of either the butterfly or the bat in card I appear to be characteristic of North America.[49][50]

Form quality, popular content responses and locations are the only coded variables in the Exner systems that are based on frequency of occurrence, and thus immediately subject to cultural influences; therefore, cultural-dependent interpretation of test data may not necessarily need to extend beyond these components.[51]

The cited language differences mean that it's imperative for the test to be administered in the subject's native language or a very well mastered second language, and, conversely, the examiner should master the language used in the test. Test responses should also not be translated into another language prior to analysis except possibly by a clinician mastering both languages. For example, a bow tie is a frequent response for the center detail of card III, but since the equivalent term in French translates to "butterfly tie", an examiner not appreciating this language nuance may code the response differently from what is expected.[52]

[edit] The ten inkblots

Below are the ten inkblots of the Rorschach test printed in Rorschach's Rorschach Test – Psychodiagnostic Plates,[53] together with the most frequent responses for either the whole image or the most prominent details according to various authors. They have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland, since at least 1992 (70 years after his death), according to Swiss copyright law.[citation needed] They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law based on when they were first created and published (before 1923).[54][55]
Card Popular responses[56][57][58] Comments[59][60]

Beck: bat, butterfly, moth
Piotrowski: bat (53%), butterfly (29%)
Dana (France): butterfly (39%)
When seeing card I, subjects often inquire on how they should proceed, and questions on what they are allowed to do with the card (e.g. turning it) aren't very significant. Being the first card, it can provide clues about how subjects tackle a new and stressful task. It is not, however, a card that is usually difficult for the subject to handle, having readily available popular responses.

Beck: two humans
Piotrowski: four-legged animal (34%, gray parts)
Dana (France): animal: dog, elephant, bear (50%, gray)
The red details of card II are often seen as blood, and are the most distinctive features. Responses to them can provide indications about how a subject is likely to manage feelings of anger or physical harm. This card is also notable for having a variety of common sexual responses.

Beck: two humans (gray)
Piotrowski: human figures (72%, gray)
Dana (France): human (76%, gray)
Card III is typically perceived as containing two humans involved in some interaction, and may provide information about how the subject relates with other people (specifically, response latency may reveal struggling social interactions).

Beck: animal hide, skin, rug
Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug (41%)
Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
Card IV is notable for its dark color and its shading (posing difficulties for depressed subjects), and is generally perceived as a big and sometimes threatening figure; compounded with the common impression of the subject being in an inferior position ("looking up") to it, this serves to elicit a sense of authority. The human or animal content seen in the card is almost invariably classified as male rather than female, and the qualities expressed by the subject may indicate attitudes toward men and authority.

Beck: bat, butterfly, moth
Piotrowski: butterfly (48%), bat (40%)
Dana (France): butterfly (48%), bat (46%)
Card V is an easily elaborated card that is not usually perceived as threatening, and typically instigates a "change of pace" in the test, after the previous more challenging cards. Containing few features that generate concerns or complicate the elaboration, it is the easiest blot to generate a good quality response about.

Beck: animal hide, skin, rug
Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug (41%)
Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
Texture is the dominant characteristic of card VI, which often elicits association related to interpersonal closeness; it is specifically a "sex card", its likely sexual percepts being reported more frequently than in any other card, even though other cards have a greater variety of commonly seen sexual contents.

Beck: human heads or faces (top)
Piotrowski: heads of women or children (27%, top)
Dana (France): human head (46%, top)
Card VII can be associated with femininity (the human figures commonly seeing in it being described as women or children), and function as a "mother card", where difficulties in responding may be related to concerns with the female figures in the subject's life. The center detail is relatively often (though not popularly) identified as a vagina, which make this card also relate to feminine sexuality in particular.

Beck: animal: not cat or dog (pink)
Piotrowski: four-legged animal (94%, pink)
Dana (France): four-legged animal (93%, pink)
People often express relief about card VIII, which lets them relax and respond effectively. Similar to card V, it represents a "change of pace"; however, the card introduces new elaboration difficulties, being complex and the first multi-colored card in the set. Therefore, people who find processing complex situations or emotional stimuli distressing or difficult may be uncomfortable with this card.

Beck: human (orange)
Piotrowski: none
Dana (France): none
Characteristic of card IX is indistinct form and diffuse, muted chromatic features, creating a general vagueness. There is only one popular response, and it is the least frequent of all cards. Having difficulty with processing this card may indicate trouble dealing with unstructured data, but aside from this there are few particular "pulls" typical of this card.

Beck: crab, lobster, spider (blue)
Piotrowski: crab, spider (37%, blue),
rabbit head (31%, light green),
caterpillars, worms, snakes (28%, deep green)
Dana (France): none
Card X is structurally similar to card VIII, but its uncertainty and complexity is reminiscent of card IX: people who find it difficult to deal with many concurrent stimuli may not particularly like this otherwise pleasant card. Being the last card, it may provide an opportunity for the subject to "sign out" by indicating what they feel their situation is like, or what they desire to know.

[edit] Prevalence

The Rorschach test is used almost exclusively by psychologists. In a survey done in the year 2000 20% of correctional psychologists used the Rorschach while 80% used the MMPI.[61] Forensic psychologists use the Rorschach 36% of the time.[62] In custody cases 23% of psychologists use the Rorschach to examine a child.[63] Another survey found that 124 out of 161 (77%) of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach,[64] and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach its use.[7] Another study found that its use by clinical psychologists was only 43% while it was used less than 24% of the time by school psychologists.[65]

[edit] Controversy

The Rorschach inkblot test is considered controversial by some researchers for several reasons. Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test pseudoscience,[9] [66] as several studies suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators since the 1950s were akin to cold reading.[67] In the 1959 edition of Mental Measurement Yearbook, Lee Cronbach (former President of the Psychometric Society and American Psychological Association[68]) is quoted in a review: "The test has repeatedly failed as a prediction of practical criteria. There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations." In addition, major reviewer Raymond J. McCall writes (p. 154): "Though tens of thousands of Rorschach tests have been administered by hundreds of trained professionals since that time (of a previous review), and while many relationships to personality dynamics and behavior have been hypothesized, the vast majority of these relationships have never been validated empirically [sic], despite the appearance of more than 2,000 publications about the test."[69] A moratorium on its use was called for in 1999.[70]

A 2003 report by Wood and colleagues had more mixed views: "More than 50 years of research have confirmed Lee J. Cronbach’s (1970) final verdict: that some Rorschach scores, though falling woefully short of the claims made by proponents, nevertheless possess “validity greater than chance” (p. 636). [...] "Its value as a measure of thought disorder in schizophrenia research is well accepted. It is also used regularly in research on dependency, and, less often, in studies on hostility and anxiety. Furthermore, substantial evidence justifies the use of the Rorschach as a clinical measure of intelligence and thought disorder."[71]

[edit] Test materials

The basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless. Supporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes, but it is not clear how this occurs. Also, recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless, and that a patient typically responds to meaningful as well as ambiguous aspects of the blots.[8] Reber (1985) describes the blots as merely ".. the vehicle for the interaction .." between client and therapist, concluding: ".. the usefulness of the Rorschach will depend upon the sensitivity, empathy and insightfuness of the tester totally independently of the Rorschach itself. An intense dialogue about the wallpaper or the rug would do as well provided that both parties believe."[72]

[edit] Tester projection

Some critics argue that the testing psychologist must also project onto the patterns. A possible example sometimes attributed to the psychologist's subjective judgement is that responses are coded (among many other things), for "Form Quality": in essence, whether the subject's response fits with how the blot actually looks. Superficially this might be considered a subjective judgment, depending on how the examiner has internalized the categories involved. But with the Exner system of scoring, much of the subjectivity is eliminated or reduced by use of frequency tables that indicate how often a particular response is given by the population in general.[8] Another example is that the response "bra" was considered a "Sex" response by male psychologists, but a "Clothing" response by females.[73] But in Exner's system, such a response is always coded as "clothing" unless there is a clear sexual reference in the response.[8]

Third parties could be used to avoid this problem, but the Rorschach's inter-rater reliability has been questioned. That is, in some studies the scores obtained by two independent scorers do not match with great consistency.[74] This conclusion was refuted in studies using large samples reported in 2002.[75]

[edit] Validity

When interpreted as a projective test, results are thus poorly verifiable. The Exner system of scoring (also known as the "Comprehensive System") is meant to address this, and has all but displaced many earlier (and less consistent) scoring systems. It makes heavy use of what factor (shading, color, outline, etc.) of the inkblot leads to each of the tested person's comments. Disagreements about test validity remain: while the Exner proposed a rigorous scoring system, latitude remained in the actual interpretation, and the clinician's write-up of the test record is still partly subjective.[76] Reber (1985) comments ".. there is essentially no evidence whatsoever that the test has even a shred of validity."[72]

Nevertheless, there is substantial research indicating the utility of the measure for a few scores. Several scores correlate well with general intelligence. Interestingly, one such scale is R, the total number of responses; this reveals the questionable side-effect that more intelligent people tend to be elevated on many pathology scales, since many scales do not correct for high R: if a subject gives twice as many responses overall, it is more likely that some of these will seem "pathological". Also correlated with intelligence are the scales for Organizational Activity, Complexity, Form Quality, and Human Figure responses.[77] The same source reports that validity has also been shown for detecting such conditions as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders; thought disorders; and personality disorders (including borderline personality disorder). There is some evidence that the Deviant Verbalizations scale relates to bipolar disorder. The authors conclude that "Otherwise, the Comprehensive System doesn't appear to bear a consistent relationship to psychological disorders or symptoms, personality characteristics, potential for violence, or such health problems as cancer".[78] (Cancer is mentioned because a small minority of Rorschach enthusiasts have claimed the test can predict cancer.)[79]

[edit] Reliability

It is also thought that the test's reliability can depend substantially on details of the testing procedure, such as where the tester and subject are seated, any introductory words, verbal and nonverbal responses to subjects' questions or comments, and how responses are recorded. Exner has published detailed instructions, but Wood et al.[73] cites many court cases where these had not been followed. Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming to inexperienced examiners, who may cut corners as a result.

[edit] Population norms

Another area of controversy are the test's statistical norms. A great strength of Exner's system was thought to be the availability of normative scores for various populations. But, beginning in the mid-1990s others began to try to replicate or update these norms and failed. In particular, discrepancies seemed to focus on indices measuring narcissism, disordered thinking, and discomfort in close relationships.[80] Lillenfeld and colleagues, who are critical of the Rorschach, have stated that this proves that the Rorschach tends to "overpathologise normals".[80] But they may have failed to account for norm changes in the population that may have been drifting in a pathological direction—in other words, that the Rorschach may be accurately reflecting increasing psychopathology in society. As described by Hibbard,[81] personality and social psychologists have written extensively on increasing narcissism in society, and this phenomenon has been shown in other research.[82] The index for difficulty in interpersonal relationships has been found to be related to divorce and separation, whose rates have also increased since Exner's original norms were established.

The accusation of "over-pathologising" has also been rebutted by Meyer et al. (2007). They presented an international collaborative study of 4704 Rorschach protocols, obtained in 21 different samples, across 17 different countries, with only 2 % showing significant elevations on the index of perceptual and thinking disorder, 12 % elevated on indices of depression and hyper-vigilance and 13% elevated on persistent stress overload—all in line with expected frequencies among nonpatient populations.[83]

[edit] Applications

The test is also controversial because of its common use in court-ordered evaluations.[citation needed] This controversy stems, in part, from the limitations of the Rorschach, with no additional data, in making official diagnoses from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).[84] Irving B. Weiner (co-developer with John Exner of the Comprehensive system) has stated that the Rorschach "is a measure of personality functioning, and it provides information concerning aspects of personality structure and dynamics that make people the kind of people they are. Sometimes such information about personality characteristics is helpful in arriving at a differential diagnosis, if the alternative diagnoses being considered have been well conceptualized with respect to specific or defining personality characteristics".[85] In the vast majority of cases, anyway, the Rorschach test wasn't singled out but used as one of several in a battery of tests[5], and despite the criticism of usage of the Rorschach in the courts, out of 8,000 cases in which forensic psychologists used Rorschach-based testimony, the appropriateness of the instrument was challenged only six times, and the testimony was ruled inadmissible in only one of those cases.[7] One study has found that use of the test in courts has increased by three times in the decade between 1996 and 2005, compared to the previous fifty years.[5] Others however have found that its usage by forensic psychologists has decreased.[86]

[edit] Protection of test items and ethics

Outlines of the ten official inkblots were first made publicly available by William Poundstone in his 1983 book Big Secrets, which also described the method of administering the test.

The blots have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland, since at least 1992 (70 years after his death) according to Swiss copyright law. They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law based on when they were first created and published (before 1923), as well as in countries with a copyright term of up to 70 years post mortem auctoris.

The American Psychological Association (APA) rules of ethics, designed to ensure "the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work", require that psychologists "make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials".[87] A public statement by the British Psychological Society expresses similar concerns and considers the "release of [test] materials to unqualified individuals" to be misuse "which may result in harm to the client".[88] The APA states that the dissemination of test materials "imposes very concrete harm to the general public" as well, in that "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose"[89] (for example, detecting suicidality[90][91][92]). In the book "Ethics in psychology", it is noted that some believe "reprinting copies of the Rorschach plates ... and listing common responses represents a serious unethical act" for psychologists and is indicative of "questionable professional judgment".[93]

Controversy ensued in the psychological community in 2009 when the original Rorschach plates and research results on interpretations were published in the "Rorschach test" article on Wikipedia.[94] Several psychologists objected, stating that the availability of such information to the public would damage the usefulness of the test by involuntarily influencing (priming) patient responses. Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, a German company that sells editions of the plates, called the publication "unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia," and said it was investigating the possibility of legal action.[citation needed] Free information and free culture advocates encourage the free dissemination of knowledge in the world on philosophical grounds, and point out that the plates themselves are old enough that they are in the public domain in at least the United States and Switzerland.

Dr. James Heilman, a Canadian emergency room physician involved in the debate, compared it to the publication of the eye test chart: though people are likewise free to memorize the eye chart before an eye test, its general usefulness as a diagnostic tool for eyesight has not diminished.[94] For those opposed to exposure, publication of the inkblots is described as a "particularly painful development", given the tens of thousands of research papers which have, over many years, "tried to link a patient’s responses to certain psychological conditions."[94]

[edit] See also

Watch out G.I. Joe Cobra's on the attack!


I was just looking around the web for pics of the old Gi Joe toys i had as a kid.
Remember all the fun of saving up some of your allowance and getting a new Gi Joe and some candy?
Not me I almost never got an allowance. I stole most of my stuff. That's not all true I did get allowance and my mom did what she could for us.
But I stole the shit out of Gi Joe. And Transformers, Thundercats, Hot Wheels, Secret Wars, and Super Friends figures.
I remember getting the gi joe "battle Stations" mini playsets. We used to grab the box and go over to the lighting or curtain section of the local Woolco department store, that turned into a Walmart and now is a Drug store and Gym and offices.
Anyways we could open anything in the lighting section and no one would catch us. We could take a few pieces at a time and come back for more. We were pretty stupid back then though as we put all the various pieced down out pants and some of them were pointy and sharp. No pain no gain.
Looking at all the pics of figures and vehicles got me nostalgic it makes me want to find the places I grew up playing with toys and hanging out with friends. It makes me realise how much this shit hole town has changed.
The apartment building I grew up in is still there, my grade school is now a sub division. The forests and greenspaces we played in are now lots that couldn't successfully have houses built on them so they became empty weed choked fields. the community center is a lot bigger but not much better, the old BMX club and track is gone, now it's a soccer field. The forest where I picked a bunch of trillium s (ontario provincial flower) and was told by a cop that picking them carried a $50 fine each is now mostly gone.
We had a hangout in an abandoned house where i felt my first boob :)that is long gone, though we defended it for a whole summer against other gangs of kids and construction workers. In the end the cops kicked us out of it so we snuck back at night and burnt it to the ground.
We made forts in forests and behind industrial buildings, are any of them there now? have they been taken over by a new generation of kids?
I remember going out at 9 am with only $2.00 in my pocket but that would buy enough junkfood for days. A pop was a quarter, so was a chocolate bar. We went to Beckers and got "Jungle Joose" and some orange "tiger Juice". I want to see if Beckers still carries that stuff. Being poor wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.
I remember stealing stuff from variety stores and when one wasn't around we could get free stuff from the ladies at the donut shops.
I remember finding playboys under couches in abandoned houses, making money by building bikes from pieces people threw out. Trading a rebuilt BMX with pegs to a kid for a brand new Tony Hawk board and riding it around town for a summer.
Even before we were interested in girls i had a girlfriend. Her name was Christine bell.She lived on the corner by the school and her mom was a nurse. Where is she now? is she married? Kids? job? She's probably nothing like the cute little freckled blond girl i remember that held my hand and we played all summer.
Growing up sucks.

Figures sold separately
ages 5 and up
some assembly required.
no tools needed.

Here's a short film i made about Zombies.
thanks to my friends Adam and Reuben.
I shot edited and produced it all.

So after waiting well over 7 years and the reason I joined a stupid messageboard I finally got to meet Alex Maleev.
I made sure to approach him while he was not eating and introduced myself to him, and I have to say Alex is one cool cat.
Just an all around good guy who will shoot the shit and give one hell of an honest take on comics and art. Holy shit can he tell some crazy shit about some big name artists.
Alex has been a big inspiration on my work and seeing him draw was a blast.
He mentioned that he really likes drawing Silver Surfer but he almost never gets to draw the character. I asked what he likes to draw for himself and he replied,
"Naked women".
yeah I can't argue with him there. Then he showed me some real nice blue pencil roughs of women poses he had stashed away.really nice romantic imagery. That's when I saw it, a rough seated pose, i knew immediately what that pose could become.
Alex then said that he would forget about his whole list of sketches, which was about 7-10 deep of mostly Daredevil, if someone wanted a woman drawn.
So wisely Brandon (a fellow boarder) switched his might never get done Daredevil sketch to what could have been Spider woman but became Electra. And a beautiful Electra at that.
That's when i said if he still wanted to draw women i had one for him and he asked which pose i liked so much. He brought it out and i asked if he minded drawing her as Rogue from X-men evolution and I gave him the turnarounds i made of the character.
Anyways he drew it up and I can't say how appreciative i am of it. I won't say how much it cost, I'll just say that next time you are up here I owe you dinner Alex.
At one point he went to the washroom and asked me to watch his stuff. He told me to sit down and draw so I did. Basically i knocked out a head shot, but it was fun using his tools.
Thanks man,
Another thing we talked about was me sculpting something based on his art, he had avoided giving me an answer for the last few years but he suggested something so i take it as a challenge to get it finished for the con in august when he will return to Toronto.
Ted
here's Alex sketching. As she's framed on my wall i notice the only thing on below the waist are boots. Awesome

Secret invasion spoilers for anyone interested.










* Skrull Hank Pym shoots Reed
* Skrull Captain Marvel blows open Thunderbolts Mountain
* Skrull Jarvis has something that makes all Iron Man shit not work
* Skrull posing as Sue Richards (but not Sue herself) goes into the Baxter Building and sends it in the Negative Zone
* Skrull busts open the Raft and the villains escape including Dr. Doom
* Last page is the Skrull armada landing on Earth

Signed, Grant Morrison.

Luke Thompson is my new Hero.
Dude lives 500 miles away and just happens to drive down the same street that i got my truck stuck on and helps me free it.
Ladies, can you believe he's single?

"Hello, Scientology. We are Anonymous.
Over the years, we have been watching you. Your campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent; your litigious nature, all of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation, the extent of your malign influence over those who trust you, who call you leader, has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind–for the laughs–we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign. You will not prevail forever against the angry masses of the body politic. Your methods, hypocrisy, and the artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell.
You cannot hide; we are everywhere.
We cannot die; we are forever. We're getting bigger every day–and solely by the force of our ideas, malicious and hostile as they often are. If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many.
Yet for all that we are not as monstrous as you are; still our methods are a parallel to your own. Doubtless you will use the Anon's actions as an example of the persecution you have so long warned your followers would come; this is acceptable. In fact, it is encouraged. We are your SPs.
Gradually as we merge our pulse with that of your "Church", the suppression of your followers will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Believers will wake, and see that salvation has no price. They will know that the stress, the frustration that they feel is not something that may be blamed upon Anonymous. No–they will see that it stems from a source far closer to each. Yes, we are SPs. But the sum of suppression we could ever muster is eclipsed by that of the RTC.
Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us."

Top 50 Atheism Quotes
To compliment the Top 100 Quotes from Fundamentalist Christian Chatrooms thread.


http://leftofzen.com/quotes-atheism/2008/01/14/

Quote:
1. Religion easily has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.

2. Atheism: A non-prophet organization.

3. I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.


Friedrich Nietzsche


4. Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?

5. Faith means not wanting to know what is true.

6. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.


Albert Einstein

7. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

8. It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

9. If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.


Gandhi Quotes

10. The most heinous and the must cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.
Mohandas K Gandhi, Young India, July 7, 1950, quoted from Laird Wilcox, ed., “The Degeneration of Belief”

11. I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.


Mark Twain Quotes

12. “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
Mark Twain

13. A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
Mark Twain

14. What God lacks is convictions — stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something — not try to be everything.

15. Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.
Mark Twain, quoted from Curmudgeon-Online

16. “In God We Trust.” I don’t believe it would sound any better if it were true.


Thomas Jefferson

17. Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

18. We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society.


Benjamin Franklin

19. The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard’s Almanack (175

20. Lighthouses are more helpful then churches.


Voltaire

21. If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.
Voltaire

22. Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.


Stephen Hawking

23. Black holes would seem to suggest that God not only plays dice, but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.
Stephen Hawking, NATURE, 1975

24. We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There’s not much personal about the laws of physics.


Jiddu Krishnamurti

25. Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.
Jiddu Krishnamurti

26. The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.
Jiddu Krishnamurti


Christopher Hitchens

27. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Christopher Hitchens

28. Christopher Hitchens On Jerry Falwell: If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox.


Sigmund Freud

29. Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.
Sigmund Freud

30. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Karl Marx


George Bernard Shaw

31. The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
George Bernard Shaw

32. Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.
Blaise Pascal

32. You’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend.
Richard Jeni

34. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg

35. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Delos B. McKown

36. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Edward Gibbon

37. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.
Robert Ingersoll

38. The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see.
Huang Po

39. Where knowledge ends, religion begins.
Benjamin Disraeli

40. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
Unknown

41. If there really is a God who created the entire universe with all of its glories, and He decides to deliver a message to humanity, He will not use, as His messenger, a person on cable TV with a bad hairstyle.
Dave Barry

42. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus

43. The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.
Eric Hoffer

44. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.
Bill Maher

45. There’s a phrase we live by in America: “In God We Trust”. It’s right there where Jesus would want it: on our money.

46. If we go back to the beginning, we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them.
Baron D’Holbach, cited in Jonathan Miller. (2004). A Brief History of Disbelief [TV-Series].

47. If I thought the Jews killed God, I’d worship the Jews.
Bill Hicks

48. Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
Isaac Asimov

49. A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition.
José Bergamín

50. One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion.
Arthur C. Clarke

Some Motherfuckers better man the fuck up and stop whining about their jobs.
If you don't like getting paid $20+ an hour then go to Mcdonalds it's about the only place to get a job.
as a guy who is unhappily back in school just to get a decent job it pisses me off to see people bitch and complain that the job they asked for is "too hard" and they "can't take it", when i'm going further into debt and wasting years of my life to escape poverty.

It's not and you are a pussy.

so shut the fuck up.







*props to Luke for Man the fuck up*