Wikipedia ruining psychology?

[Cogburn]

Saw this on the front page of the NYT yesterday. I'm not one of the CCHR/Scientology anti-psychology nutters, but couldn't there quite possibly be a serious problem with a medical test that is invalidated if the patient already knows the answers?

Even the SAT changes. How about some of you genius psychologists get together and develop some new inkblots every few years?

Cry babies.
[offsite=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2003586/rorschach_test_validity_compromised.html?cat=5:u9w 43dvj]Rorschach Test Validity Compromised by Wikipedia Entry

According to a New York Times article published yesterday, the validity of the Rorschach test may have been compromised by the reproduction on Wikipedia of the ten ink blots used in the psychological examination. Many psychologists
Rorschach Test Validity Compromised by Wikipedia Entry
find themselves up in arms concerning the potential security breach, which may skew the test's psychological validity (whether the test measures what it is supposed to measure). Will this so-called Rorschach cheat sheet render the inkblot test a useless tool in the future?

What is the Rorschach test?
The Rorschach test is a series of inkblot pictures that are said to help a psychologist or psychiatrist get insight into an individual's personality. There are ten original Rorschach images, and the test was originally created in 1921 by Hermann Rorschach. Psychologists are specially trained in the administration of the Rorschach test, from the test conditions to the analysis of the results.

Can you take the Rorschach test online?
There are no websites that allow users to take the real Rorschach test online, though there are websites that offer sample test questions or a series of inkblots given and evaluated for entertainment purposes. One such website, TheInkBlot.com, allows users to take a Rorschach test online. This inkblot test doesn't recreate the actual images found in the Rorschach test, however, and therefore doesn't concern psychologists to the same extent as the recent breach at Wikipedia.

Why the big secret over the Rorschach test?
Given an overview in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach test during several of my psychology courses in college, I was informed that if a doctor ever wanted me to take the test, I'd need to disclose my training and background in the test. Otherwise, the results would not be valid. That's the problem today--though the copyright of the test is expired, sharing the pictures used in the Rorschach test online through Wikipedia means that doctors may no longer be able to use the test as part of a psychological profile.

For now, the debate between Wikipedia and those campaigning for free speech versus those striving to protect the validity of the Rorschach test is set to wage on.[/offsite:u9w43dvj]

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

The docs will still be able to push pills though, right?

[boycotteverything]

so voodoo dies a second death? condolences to Dr. Rorschach.

http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/img/rorschach.jpg
The famous good dogs bad dog. Woofs.

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

They're much more colorful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test#The_ten_inkblots) than I expected...

[boycotteverything]

I like this one. "Alien eagle with hydrant in ass"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Rorschach_blot_04.jpg

I never did too good on those tests.

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

A man (with pointy shoes) eating out a bigfoot laying on her back (the hair under her chin is lighter) squealing in delight as her labia protrude from her hairy snatch and begin to swallow his head.

*coff*


(oh yeah, her skinny little arms are reaching up so she can twist her nipples; see it?)

[boycotteverything]

Oh yeah! I see that now! Clear as day. Wow- you better stay away from these tests too. The lunatic asylums of the 30s are testimony to the efficacy of the testing technique. But you're looking at lobotomy here!

[lala]

I'd say its about time they moved into the 20th century anyway . . . :nuts:

[skunk]

If you don't see something strange in the ink blot pictures, you're REALLY fucked up.

[Lexion]

If you don't see something strange in the ink blot pictures, you're REALLY fucked up.

I always see porn.

YAY !!!!

I'm normal !!!!

Lex

[skunk]

Well I'm not sure i'd go so far as to say you're normal...

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

Fucked up?


But you're looking at lobotomy here!


A frontal lobotomy, a bottle in front of me; I'm poking my brain with Q-Tips and can't hear you...

[Cogburn]

Cthulu getting a hummer.

[torbjon]

I'm sorry, funny tho' this is, the operative words / concept in the article for me were:

"security breach"

that doesn't raise a little flag for people?

[Cogburn]

True... It begs the question, why is it considered a security breach?

It's because psychiatrists haven't come up with anything new in 50 years and it's starting to show. For ages they were able to have their little secret tests and the vast majority of the public wasn't aware that there were right answers, much less that the answers were available in a college bookstore. The internet has, once again, destroyed another wall of secrecy and those behind the wall have yet to adjust to the new norm.

You mean... psychiatrists might have to think? Perish the thought.

After giving it some thought, I really fucked up the title. This isn't a blow to psychology... it's a blow to psychiatry.

That shit is little more than voodoo witchcraft... and good riddance.

[lala]

Imo it about money . . . . security through obscurity . . . :smokin:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/07/rorschach_and_awe.html

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

Honey, it always comes down to money...

[torbjon]

True... It begs the question, why is it considered a security breach?

It's because psychiatrists haven't come up with anything new in 50 years and it's starting to show. For ages they were able to have their little secret tests and the vast majority of the public wasn't aware that there were right answers, much less that the answers were available in a college bookstore. The internet has, once again, destroyed another wall of secrecy and those behind the wall have yet to adjust to the new norm.

You mean... psychiatrists might have to think? Perish the thought.

After giving it some thought, I really fucked up the title. This isn't a blow to psychology... it's a blow to psychiatry.

That shit is little more than voodoo witchcraft... and good riddance.

"you remind me of a man"
"what man?
"a man with the power"
"what power"
"the power of hoodoo"
"hoodoo?"
"you do"
"I do what?"
"you remind me of a man"
...

[torbjon]

little off topic... this is a good college level lecture on google video called "excellent mind control documentary". NOT 'new world order' crap, but rather mind fucking for better mental and physical health (the alleged purpose of psychology / psychiatry). I like the bit about binaural beats... (some brief chat about Krillian photography, too, Cog... ever write that guy about the OM symbol?)

watch the doc on google (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4381134473144071630)

very long, pack a lunch.

[Alessandra]

Well I'm not sure i'd go so far as to say you're normal...


Far from it, actually.

[Cogburn]

little off topic... this is a good college level lecture on google video called "excellent mind control documentary". NOT 'new world order' crap, but rather mind fucking for better mental and physical health (the alleged purpose of psychology / psychiatry). I like the bit about binaural beats... (some brief chat about Krillian photography, too, Cog... ever write that guy about the OM symbol?)

watch the doc on google (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4381134473144071630)

very long, pack a lunch.
Honestly... I forgot about sending that message until you mentioned it just now.

Sent.

[boycotteverything]

For Torbjon and other believers in voodoo psychology- who are in sack cloth and ashes over the publication of the Rorschach cartoon nonsense:
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090731-badscience-rorschach.html


Rorschach Test: Discredited But Still Controversial

http://i.livescience.com/images/090731-rorschach-01.jpg

By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience's Bad Science Columnist

posted: 31 July 2009 02:44 pm ET

The first of 10 images in the Rorschach ink-blot test. Wikipedia published all 10 plus the "answers." Credit: Wikipedia/Public Domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test

Though the Rorschach is the most famous psychological test in the world, it is little understood outside of psychology circles. The test, in the news this week and under much debate, is a series of 10 colored ink blots created nearly a century ago by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach.

The ink blots are a projective test; patients are asked to interpret the patterns for a psychologist or psychiatrist. As a subjective test, there are no official right or wrong answers, but test-givers do have a list of what are called normed responses — the most common answers.

The premise behind the test is that the answers provided by people who suffer from mental illness will be markedly different than the answers provided by normal people.

A controversy erupted recently when Wikipedia posted the ink blots online, along with the "correct" answers to each.

No big deal, right? Well, here's the problem: The Rorschach blots (not to mention the "answers") are supposed to be kept secret. Many psychologists were outraged, believing that having the information out there would make the test worthless, since test-takers could memorize the answers and "cheat."

Rorschach's open secret

In fact, the Rorschach blots have been publically available for more than 30 years; they were published in the 1975 book "The Nuremberg Mind," available online for under $3.

William Poundstone's 1983 book "Big Secrets" not only shows all the Rorschach blots, but devotes a whole chapter to them, including discussing how to "cheat" — what answers to provide so that you don't appear psychotic. (Here's a hint: don't say, "It looks like the mess I made this morning when Capt. Crunch told me to gut my dog with a butter knife.")

So the Rorschach images themselves are hardly top secret, though never so easily available.

Validity problems

The furor over Wikipedia's posting of the Rorschach blots obscures a far more important issue. The real concern should not be whether people might be able to cheat on the test, but whether or not the Rorschach is valid in the first place.

After all, if the test is worthless at diagnosing mental illness, assessing personality disorders, or predicting behavior, there is no point in "protecting" it.

Scott Lilienfeld, an associate professor of psychology at Emory University and co-author of the 2003 book "What's Wrong with the Rorschach?" is one of many psychologists who doubts the validity of the test. Lilienfeld and the other authors surveyed more than 50 years of research and studies on the scientific evidence for the Rorschach, concluding that it is "weak at best and nonexistent at worst."

Furthermore, Lilienfeld and colleagues point out, studies show that about half of the normal Rorschach test-takers will be labeled as having "distorted thinking." This staggeringly high false-positive error rate (among many other problems) suggests that the Rorschach should be relegated to the pile of once-promising but now-discredited psychological tests.

It seems that the test has remained in use more out of tradition than good evidence. Wikipedia's publication of the test blots may unintentionally be the final nail in the coffin for Hermann Rorschach's idea.