Rorschach blots available on Wikipedia

[cara susanna]

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92863

Apparently some doctor put some real Rorschach images on Wikipedia. Debate has now ensued between people who think it is not a big deal, and people who think it is (the latter being primarily psychologists).

Thoughts?

By the way, be cautious if you decide to read the comments--some of them may hurt your head.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92863

Apparently some doctor put some real Rorschach images on Wikipedia. Debate has now ensued between people who think it is not a big deal, and people who think it is (the latter being primarily psychologists).

Thoughts?

By the way, be cautious if you decide to read the comments--some of them may hurt your head.

Well, I had been on there before and noticed they had 1 or 2 posted, with no real explanation. Now I see they have apparently updated it with all 10, and listed some popluar responses. THAT is a problem. It won't be long before they are told to take them down. Just like when the 1st 75 MMPI-2 questions were on the "anti-polygraph.com" site. It's against the law.

Edit--I just went back and read the lengthy justification for posting them. If the poster is right about the public domain stuff, and is a psychologist, it's still unethical.

 

[leavingprov]

Well, I had been on there before and noticed they had 1 or 2 posted, with no real explanation. Now I see they have apparently updated it with all 10, and listed some popluar responses. THAT is a problem. It won't be long before they are told to take them down. Just like when the 1st 75 MMPI-2 questions were on the "anti-polygraph.com" site. It's against the law.

Edit--I just went back and read the lengthy justification for posting them. If the poster is right about the public domain stuff, and is a psychologist, it's still unethical.

FYI this was also in the NY Times yesterday, interesting article!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html

 

[nononora]

It is unethical but there are no copyright laws to prevent this, so it seems that we're just going to have to accept it. I'm not convinced as to whether it may bias responses to the point of making the test invalid as anyone who's given the Rorschach knows that the "meat" of the test is not in the popular responses but in the elaboration. That being said, I'd certainly prefer it to not be available online but perhaps its time for some research to be done on the supplemental cards?

 

[KillerDiller]

I have now seen these blots linked at least half a dozen times on various social networking sites. It really really makes me angry. I don't buy the whole "information should be free" argument in this case and I think it's fairly horrifying that people are willing to brush off the objections of scientists and professional organizations. Seems like people think it's funny.

And as for the whole eye chart analogy...I'm now convinced that we should take that down from the internet as well.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, people are mostly saying that the Rorschach is stupid, anyway, because they don't understand exactly how clinicians use it.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is unethical but there are no copyright laws to prevent this....

The person who released it was a Canadian physician, so he is not bound by our ethics code (because he is not a psychologist and also not in this country). As for the copyright laws, it depends on the source material. If the images were taken from a more recently published book, it is still copyrighted. If the images were taken from an old text not covered by copyright, then it would be okay.

 

[HenryHall]

It is unethical but there are no copyright laws to prevent this, so it seems that...

It's not a matter of there being no applicable copyright laws. There is an affirmative duty for the former copyright holder to publish.

If you want to keep a secret you are free to keep it in perpetuity - and the Coca Cola Company does exactly that with their secret sauce. But if their secret ever leaks out it is dedicated to the public - even though they might have a case for money damages against the leaker; but they still can't try to stop people from using the information with impunity.

But if you want government to assist you protect your intellectual property then that is a contract. You are given protection for a limited period of time in exchange for observing the formalities (marking the document with a .©. or with "Copr." ) AND dedicating the property to the public AFTER the limited period.

So not only are there no laws to protect copyright-expired material, it goes further. There is an affirmative duty to publish the material and place it in the public domain once the copyright is expired.

That is the "bargain" if you will, protection now in return for dedication to the public later.

As to whether information should be free - there will never be general agreement on that. Some people believe the public should be kept informed about anything and everything that might affect them, others think secrets should be kept and information limited to those with a demonstrated "legitimate need to know". It's purely a matter of politics - just like government medicine versus commercial medicine for example. One can only agree to differ.
.

 

[Quynh2007]

so, I just saw an application using these inkblots on facebook. I decided to take a look, and, it is suppose to measure how "insane" you are through your multiple choice answer of what you think is the inkblot is portraying (I wasn't paying too much attention to what the choices were b/c I just wanted to see if they used all 10, they did).

Here is how I found out about it on Facebook through my newsfeed:

just took Inkblot Insanity Test and got 7 out of 10 correct for a score of 70%. 504,912 people have taken it so far.
You scored 70%.
30% Insane. Mostly sane with a touch of crazy!

 

[KillerDiller]

so, I just saw an application using these inkblots on facebook. I decided to take a look, and, it is suppose to measure how "insane" you are through your multiple choice answer of what you think is the inkblot is portraying (I wasn't paying too much attention to what the choices were b/c I just wanted to see if they used all 10, they did).

Here is how I found out about it on Facebook through my newsfeed:

just took Inkblot Insanity Test and got 7 out of 10 correct for a score of 70%. 504,912 people have taken it so far.
You scored 70%.
30% Insane. Mostly sane with a touch of crazy!

Unbelievable

 

[cara susanna]

Reminds me of those stupid personality disorder online quizzes, only at least those don't use what should be private testing material. At least... I think they don't.

 

[busi26]

Reminds me of those stupid personality disorder online quizzes, only at least those don't use what should be private testing material. At least... I think they don't.

I don't really get this test. The validity of the test is really poor. Why not just give a good clinical interview instead?

 

[KillerDiller]

I don't really get this test. The validity of the test is really poor. Why not just give a good clinical interview instead?

The Rorschach isn't really used by itself to make Axis 1 and 2 diagnoses. It can provide some information for those who are diagnosing, but I would question someone who uses that information and only that information to diagnose. Instead, the Rorschach yields information on a client's abilities to perceive and organize information.

What makes you say it's not valid? The Exner system uses empirically derived scoring and was normed on a very large sample. It also has good inter-rater and test-retest reliability.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What makes you say it's not valid? The Exner system uses empirically derived scoring and was normed on a very large sample. It also has good inter-rater and test-retest reliability.

Aren't there concerns about some of that data, as people doing follow-up work couldn'r recreate the results?

 

[cara susanna]

Millon says that you shouldn't diagnose personality disorders without using some sort of projective testing in addition to the other kind, which I find interesting.

 

[KillerDiller]

Aren't there concerns about some of that data, as people doing follow-up work couldn'r recreate the results?

Not sure what you mean here, as I haven't read all that much literature on it. How did they attempt to recreate results of a normative sample of 1,000+ people?

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

I don't really get this test. The validity of the test is really poor. Why not just give a good clinical interview instead?

Actually, that's not true. It depends on what you're using it for. If you're trying to make a diagnosis with the Rorschach, it's got poor validity, because that's not what it's meant to do. It's meant to be an assessment of different aspects of cognitive and personality functioning. The S-CON, however, has very good validity and while it's not a "diagnosis," per se, it is a robust predictor of suicidality.

 

[Ollie123]

I've got the citation around somewhere but I'll have to do some digging. If memory serves, the original Exner system was based off data with a sizable chunk of subjects in the database twice, which obviously caused some serious problems. If it wasn't the Exner Rorschach, then that's true for some other widely used measure and there was something else wrong with the Exner system because I've definitely got a bell going off

There are a few somewhat valid subscales on the Rorschach - again if memory serves, I believe its fairly good at picking up thought disorder. I'm not as closed off to it as some, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that makes me think there is any justification for widespread, regular use. Given the time involved in administering and scoring it relative to many other measures, I'd want to see some pretty convincing incremental validity too, and that doesn't seem to exist (or at least I never found any).

 

[SteelMariposa]

Ollie,

Exner went back in 2003 and renormed his sample. Even with the doubles in his original sample, the end results did not change anything significantly.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ollie,

Exner went back in 2003 and renormed his sample. Even with the doubles in his original sample, the end results did not change anything significantly.

Hmmm...didn't know that.

 

[Ollie123]

Ollie,

Exner went back in 2003 and renormed his sample. Even with the doubles in his original sample, the end results did not change anything significantly.

Figured that had happened at some point, though didn't know that the re-normed results were identical. Interesting and rather surprising. Was there a journal publication or is it just in the test kit manual? I'd be interested to take a look and see for myself.

Regardless, whatever norms are used, the literature seems to indicate only a handful of the 200 (ish? can't remember offhand) scales should be used, and even then it doesn't address the incremental validity concerns.

 

[cara susanna]

I agree with the psychologists who are saying that it is one thing to question the validity of a test, and another quite entirely to post a "cheat sheet" for it.

I was just reading the NYT article actually; it was linked on one of the listservs to which I'm subscribed.

 

[KillerDiller]

I agree with the psychologists who are saying that it is one thing to question the validity of a test, and another quite entirely to post a "cheat sheet" for it.

I completely agree with this as well. Also, validity aside, it is incredibly disturbing to see the public response to the protests by psychologists. It's basically "Screw you guys, I want to play with these things even though I don't know anything about how they are used, and I wouldn't be satisfied doing so with similar, unofficial blots".

I doesn't seem that making this information public is helping anyone.

 

[busi26]

Actually, that's not true. It depends on what you're using it for. If you're trying to make a diagnosis with the Rorschach, it's got poor validity, because that's not what it's meant to do. It's meant to be an assessment of different aspects of cognitive and personality functioning. The S-CON, however, has very good validity and while it's not a "diagnosis," per se, it is a robust predictor of suicidality.

The Exner system has made the test reliable, but anything can be made to be reliable. My bathroom scale may say that I weight 25 pounds every day, but that doesn't mean that I actually weigh 25 pounds. The problem with the test is that it has no validity. What does the Rorschach predict? In fact, papers on the Rorschach are only published in one or two journals that are friendly to the test.

Would someone please tell me what this test can provide that other tests can't? Why would anyone ever give this test? What is meant by "assessment of different aspects of cognitive and personality functioning?" It has always seemed to me that this test is pseudoscience. I think we should try to move away from this sort of thing in psychology.

 

[cara susanna]

KillerDiller: Yeah, the public's response is what's most upsetting to me as well. A lot of people are saying things like, well, just develop a new test, or you shouldn't need it anyway, or it's a stupid test anyway, or claiming that psychologists are just upset that their "rituals" are no longer cloaked in "secrecy."

 

[psychmama]

KillerDiller: Yeah, the public's response is what's most upsetting to me as well. A lot of people are saying things like, well, just develop a new test, or you shouldn't need it anyway, or it's a stupid test anyway, or claiming that psychologists are just upset that their "rituals" are no longer cloaked in "secrecy."

I agree with you. Still, I've been thinking about this from the public's perspective. Here you have a strange, difficult to interpret test that on the face of it seems to have little to do with someone's personality. The whole thing is cloaked in secrecy, yet psychologists claim that they can tell if you're crazy or not by its results. It's enough to make anyone paranoid, no?

When I was learning to administer the test, I gave a practice Rorschach to a family member. This person is highly educated, and by no stretch either paranoid or lacking in ego strength. The whole thing was VERY upsetting to them -- especially the idea that they were being judged by their responses to something that seemed so far-fetched -- a bunch of blots on a series of cards.

I think some of these feelings contribute to the public's lack of concern about the Wikipedia disclosure. My guess is that there might be less of this reaction of "who cares -- serves them right" if the WAIS answers were published.

I personally am ambivalent about the Rorschach. I think it can be useful, but it's a beast to code and interpret properly. Moreover, the public perception is that it's some sort of shaman-like "smoke and mirrors", which I don't blame them for.

 

[cara susanna]

I definitely can see why they feel the way they do. I just wish they would try to understand from where the psychologists are coming.

 

[psychmama]

I definitely can see why they feel the way they do. I just wish they would try to understand from where the psychologists are coming.

I'm with you on that.

 

[HenryHall]

... My guess is that there might be less of this reaction of "who cares -- serves them right" if the WAIS answers were published. ...

They already are freely available to anyone who wants to break the law and cheat by downloading anonymously in an Internet cafe. I hope I'm not bursting any bubbles.

As an experiment I asked my teenage son if he could find a copy of WAIS on the Internet for me. Once we straightened out that I was not looking for the Wide Area Information Server code, he found a copy of the German translation of the WAIS-IV test and scoring guide in less than two minutes. A well-known online server was able to find the English version in less than an hour of unattended search. It would be totally an illegal copyright violation to actually download it of course and we would not, but locating a copy and checking the copy is by consensus regarded as uncorrupted is not. At one time publishers would plant trojans and viruses in fake copies but VM (Virtual Machine) quarantine with consensus rating overcame that.

Due to the nature of torrenting it is likely not in the same place for two days in a row. As of the moment of writing the German version of WAIS III can be found via http://www.btmon.com/Applications/Windows/WAIS-III_Scoringprogram_v.1.1.torrent.html
It may very well be gone by tomorrow.

As to the Rorschach test, a watercooler conversation today went along the lines of "Since there are no right or wrong answers then it logically can't be cheating to know what the right answers are, now can it?". Just thought I would share the popular view.

In the long run you folks will have to change your modi operandi to take account of the fact that in the 21st Century one simply cannot both distribute information and also control it, not even if it is the recipe for making nukes. But it is possible to find ways of working effectively having accepted that limitation and laid to rest ideas of secrecy. I guarantee you the computer industry does exactly that with semiconductor microcircuit designs (yes, that is my line of work ).

 

[busi26]

I think it can be useful, but it's a beast to code and interpret properly. Moreover, the public perception is that it's some sort of shaman-like "smoke and mirrors", which I don't blame them for.

I agree that most of the public thinks the test is shaman-like smoke and mirrors. Additionally, many Psychologist think that as well (I am one of them). There are so many tests that provide useful, valid information about our patients, why is the Rorschach still used?

 

[psychmama]

In the long run you folks will have to change your modi operandi to take account of the fact that in the 21st Century one simply cannot both distribute information and also control it, not even if it is the recipe for making nukes. But it is possible to find ways of working effectively having accepted that limitation and laid to rest ideas of secrecy. I guarantee you the computer industry does exactly that with semiconductor microcircuit designs (yes, that is my line of work ).

HH - I was just wondering what your connection to psychology is if computers is your line of work? Career changer?

 

[SaltyDogChicago]

Knowledge should be shared. Period.

I also believe that we medical students should be more involved in Wikipedia. We know more than the public and are less busy than practicing doctors. If you want to help with Wikipedia, learn how here:

http://garbageplatemd.blogspot.com/2009/08/wikipedia-for-beginners.html

 

[KillerDiller]

Knowledge should be shared. Period.

I also believe that we medical students should be more involved in Wikipedia. We know more than the public and are less busy than practicing doctors. If you want to help with Wikipedia, learn how here:

http://garbageplatemd.blogspot.com/2009/08/wikipedia-for-beginners.html

Why should information be shared when it will mean absolutely nothing to those who aren't trained to properly use it?

Furthermore, should we share information like all the answers to the upcoming SAT? It's pretty clear there are cases when information should not be public just to fulfill the ideal of a free exchange of information.

 

[busi26]

I agree that most of the public thinks the test is shaman-like smoke and mirrors. Additionally, many Psychologist think that as well (I am one of them). There are so many tests that provide useful, valid information about our patients, why is the Rorschach still used?

Any ideas about this?

 

[leavingprov]

BUMP... think this thread is really interesting and would love to keep it going!

 

[busi26]

I agree. Where do you stand on this issue?

 

[erg923]

I can imagine the rationale one might give for giving a Rorchach. I assume it would be something to the effect of.....

1.) The way people look at and describe their world drives how they feel about and act toward it. The Rorschach provides a systematic method for assessment of how people look at and describe their world, as compared with the perceptual descriptions of people from known groups.

2.)The Rorschach offers information about the personality, subjective aspects of experience (normal, injured, and mentally distressed) and cognitive functioning in unstructured environments that is not available elsewhere.

Now both of these are true and are legitmate rationales. However, knowing what we know about its norms (Wood et al), the relatively low behavioral correlates of most of the scales, the poor reliabilty of clinical judegments based on its responses (or any projectives) and the "law of diminshing returns" (ie., time investment), I am not sure why it is still used either. I'm sure the Rorschach can give clinically-meaningful information. But so can having lunch with the patient, or watching videos of their wedding. However, I'm not sure one would consider these procedures to have significant validity or reliability in terms of quantifiable data. None of these are the kind of thing I'd like to try to write a report based upon.

 

[erg923]

see above

 

[Shatani]

personally, im a rorschach fan (actually gave one just today!) and was saddened when i found out the blots were revealed and so called "right" answers were given. i know there are responses that are popular, or things that most people see and everything....it just bothers me to call them right. its supposed to be a novel task. one that an individual thinks about, comes up with responses to, filter those responses based on the situation and then spits one out. that process is whats of interest to me (and i suspect others who rorschach)

having been trained to adminster, score and interpret the rorschach doesnt make it seem any less magical to me i know that sounds silly, but all of my (anecdotal) experience has shown this measure to be dead on. i was trained by doing it blind, meaning i would test a person whom i'd never met (a client of my supervisor)...score and interpret and present that to my supervisor and there wasnt a time that the test didnt produce an eerily accurate picture of the way that person operates. i know how it works and im still amazed!

as an assessor, i understand the concept of the battery and it would be irresponsible of me to base anything off of JUST a rorschach. but i will say that it is always a helpful part of my battery, and as i strive for convergeant validity, i dont really see it being a huge problem. im pretty sure that if a person is using the stock answers in an effort to feign normalcy, it'll show up elsewhere in the battery.

okay, off to read the rest of the thread...

 

[CheetahGirl]

I am not sure why it is still used either. I'm sure the Rorschach can give clinically-meaningful information. But so can having lunch with the patient, or watching videos of their wedding. However, I'm not sure one would consider these procedures to have significant validity or reliability in terms of quantifiable data. None of these are the kind of thing I'd like to try to write a report based upon.

You're being cheecky...

I've been trained using Exner's Comprehensive System, which has normative values on 2,000+ clinical and non-clinical samples (Exner, 1995)...and these samples are growing via empirical studies. Sure, you could scrutinize any model for reliability, validity, accuracy, inter-rater reliability, etc. but that's what the statistical findings are for…to find significance, which some people do.

You have to ask yourself why you need a personality assessment and that creates the impetus for using this test versus another.

If you are challenged with how to interrupt the test, or are just plain "bored" with it, then don't use it as your assessment tool…use the MMPI (your lack of motivation will affect the results and you won't pick up on an Hd or Y'). I'll use the Rorschach (in addition to other tools) and happily write the assessments reports in your place.

P.S. I think they should get those images off Wikipedia because it exposes people to the images (if they are inclined to look them up on the web and "mull" over what they see). It takes away the element of surprise. But, prior exposure to intelligence tests has similar effects.

SIDETRACK: I used to work in a basic science lab: sometimes wounds that were produced on obese mice were not cut in the same dimensions which compromised healing rates, but …in terms of quantifiable data, for those who needed the information and knew what to do with it, this info meant a lot and led to major discoveries in angiogenesis. To the rest of the world, you're like…what the $%*@?!? This concept (angiogenesis) is the sum of one part (mouse experiments). You could look at it in terms of personality assessment being more validity and reliability once the Rorschach is used (the sum of one part).

 

[erg923]

having been trained to adminster, score and interpret the rorschach doesnt make it seem any less magical to me i know that sounds silly, but all of my (anecdotal) experience has shown this measure to be dead on.

You have just made the argument for why the rorshach is bad...think about it.

You have just made an argument in favor of perpetuating confirmation bias. Of course it will confirm things. You can find pathology in it either way. Wood, Garb, Lillienfeld, etc have writen about this extensively and how the norms are already predisopsed to overpathologize. The idea of assessment is to use something objective (more so than exners system) that tests against your hypothesis. Moreover, if you are simply using it to confirm something, wouldn't you prefer an instument that is more psychometrically sound. If thats the idea, the return on your time investment is less from the rorschach than you would get from another instrument, no?

 

[cara susanna]

I was told it's really good for detecting psychosis.

 

[erg923]

Yes, we know that psychometrically this is its best feature. However, why in the world would you need this instrument to detect this? Its not like most floridly psychotric people are shy about telling you about all the wild stuff they belief. Even in subtle cases where people are trying to hold it togther, a seasoned clinician should have good interview skills and enough experience to pick up a suspicion of underlying psychotic DO. In the case of the person who is mute, extremley guarded, and/or "holding it together" for your interview, a rorschach might add some evidence to your suspicions, but its nothing to base a diagnosis on. You should already have these suspicions from your interview anyway. So in the end, your time investment has not really paid off.

Moreover, if a person can "hold it togther" for a 2 hour interview and not give you any signs of psychosis/odd beliefs, why they would suddenly give it up and let it all come out on a rorschach is beyond me. Dont know if there is evidence for that speculation though.

 

[erg923]

I've been trained using Exner's Comprehensive System, which has normative values on 2,000+ clinical and non-clinical samples (Exner, 1995)...and these samples are growing via empirical studies.

Then what is your repsonse to concerns/criticisms of these norms by Garb, Wood, lillienfeld, and many others?

 

[Shatani]

You have just made the argument for why the rorshach is bad...think about it.

You have just made an argument in favor of perpetuating confirmation bias. Of course it will confirm things. You can find pathology in it either way. Wood, Garb, Lillienfeld, etc have writen about this extensively and how the norms are already predisopsed to overpathologize. The idea of assessment is to use something objective (more so than exners system) that tests against your hypothesis. Moreover, if you are simply using it to confirm something, wouldn't you prefer an instument that is more psychometrically sound. If thats the idea, the return on your time investment is less from the rorschach than you would get from another instrument, no?

im not sure im getting your meaning. if i testing people who arent my clients, not looking for anything in particular, writing up a brief report and presenting it to that person's therapist....where is the confirmation bias? i never test my own clients (as no assessor should, IMO, rorschach or not) and other than a referral question, im really not looking for anything.

its never just the rorschach. and ive had many times when the mmpi findings seem to contradict the rorschach findings, which always makes for interesting differentials. the rorschach gives me information that is difficult to get from other places, information that is relevant to the referral question. thats why its part of my battery.

 

[erg923]

My point is....... that if results of other tests/measures show pathology, there is always a way to find confirmation of that pathology in the rorshach. If may be very un PC for a moment- nutty people will give nutty responses on the rorschach AND non-nutty people will/can/do give nutty responses on the rorschach too. Where's its ability to discriminate in other words? Experimental psychology dictates that you never prove anything. You are constantly searching for alternate explanations until you are out of them. IMHO, assesment should be conducted the same way (ie., always searching for, and utiliizing tools that can disconfirm, your hypothesis/clinical impression). I would assume you were taught this in grad school too, right? This should be done using instruments that have proven their ability to reliably discriminate "normal" from "abnormal." Based on studies such as those by Hamel et al, 2000; Shaffer, 1999, Wood et al 2001, Meyer, 2001 and what we found out about its normative sample via Exner himself in 2001, can the rorshach really claims this?

What is your response to wood and garbs criticism from "What wrong with the Rorchach??

 

[busi26]

its supposed to be a novel task. one that an individual thinks about, comes up with responses to, filter those responses based on the situation and then spits one out. that process is whats of interest to me (and i suspect others who rorschach)

having been trained to adminster, score and interpret the rorschach doesnt make it seem any less magical to me .

See ERG's post.

The test is junk science. I can't beleive that your supervisor taught it to you. It predicts nothing. Anyone could make up a test with equal validity (to that of the Rorschach) using cloud shapes. You should ask your supervisor why he/she didn't use the time wasted on the Rorschach to teach you how to administer and score a valid test. There are plenty valid/reliable tests in psychology!

If the purpose of the test is to find out how the patient sees the world, why would scoring the test be necessary? What does a patient's test score mean/predict?

 

[busi26]

I was told it's really good for detecting psychosis.

Where did you hear this? The Ror is no better at detecting psychosis than the MMPI II, a clinical interview, talking with a patient for 30 minutes, the SCL-90, and a plethora of other validated tests.

 

[busi26]

its never just the rorschach. and ive had many times when the mmpi findings seem to contradict the rorschach findings.

No doubt. the Rorschach is not a valid test. Of course you are going to get information that contradicts other tests.

the rorschach gives me information that is difficult to get from other places, information that is relevant to the referral question. thats why its part of my battery.

Please enlighten us on what information the rorschach can provide that is not available from less magical methods?

 

[erg923]

Anyone could make up a test with equal validity (to that of the Rorschach) using cloud shapes.

Well yea, but who would pay for your normative data...

Slow down cowboy. I didnt say all that. The norms are bad and flawed, I assume you know the issues with them and the revelations in recent years, no? If not, we can discuss that too. In my mind, this is even worse than the way of Klopfer and the old school rorschachers (who opposed any normative data at all), because it gives a false sense of (objective) security. However, even Garb and friends have an article called "What's Right with the Rorschach." Yes, even its most vocal critics say its good for something. Its not much, but there are scales that are robust predictors (ie., S-CON). But still, I'd much prefer to get the info somewhere else and in half the time....

I had a whole class on the Rorschach in grad school where I learned Exners coding and intepretation system inside and out..... and im glad I did! And no, I didnt find that it took away from anything. If I hadn't been in that class, I probably just would have been out at Home Depot picking out drapes with the wife or something. Its not like I would have read another hundred pages of my MMPI manual or something. Frankly, I found the rorshcach and the class to be intellectual masterbation of sorts. In my mind, grad school should allow us this opportunity to some extent. In the real working world, one doesnt have much time for such selfish pleasures....I find that anything that allows us to understand (although not agree with) the perspectives of others in this profession is an opportunity for personal and professional self growth.