Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet

Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship 635

Posted by kdawson
from the guy-drawing-the-dirty-pictures dept.
GigsVT writes "Editors on Wikipedia are engaged in an epic battle over a few piece of paper smeared with ink. The 10 inkblot images that form the classic Rorschach test have fallen into the public domain, and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice. However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test. Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • I thought they.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tmosley (996283) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:40PM (#28695887)
    I thought they made those randomly. If there are only ten of them, that seems to indicate that there are a few certain "correct" answers, which kind of throws the whole test into doubt now, doesn't it?
    • by omfglearntoplay (1163771) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:42PM (#28695915)

      I think the doubt thrown on the validity of the tests is all over the place anyway. Why not just let the tests out and end the debate there?

      • by LaskoVortex (1153471) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:17PM (#28696497)

        I think the doubt thrown on the validity of the tests is all over the place anyway. Why not just let the tests out and end the debate there?

        They are useful. Here were my answers: butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly. Based on my answers, my analyst, Dr. Lector, said I was a tedious but promising candidate to be a murderous sociopath. He said it was going to take some work, though. I'm now in a cage taking heavy doses of barbiturates "to help me with my progress". I'm still waiting for the next phase of treatment when I get the spinal injections before being forced to listen to Beethoven's Ode to Joy and watching Nazis have sex with prostitutes.

        Who would have thought so much treatment could be advised from how one interprets bilaterally symmetric and colorful images that have the same vague appearance as a major phylogeny from the tree of life. I feel better already!

      • Because the shrink are lazy bums; too lazy to even come up with new ink blobs.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:44PM (#28695973)

      The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense. It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting. The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".

      This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.

      • by hardburn (141468) <hardburn&wumpus-cave,net> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:11PM (#28696423)

        Thread should end right here. While the Rorschach test does have some limited scientific validity, it doesn't deserve to be as widespread as it is. The test's "effectiveness" relies on exactly the same psychological blindspot that fortune telling does. Wikipedia isn't hampering the effectiveness of anything that isn't already broken.

        • by Munden (681257) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:32PM (#28696669)
          I too scoff at the validity of these so called Rorschach tests. Any Phrenologist will tell you the only thing that really matters is the shape of your head. For you see, the form of the cranium represents the form of the brain, and thus reflects the relative development of the brain organs.
      • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ajs (35943) <ajs@noSPam.ajs.com> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:37PM (#28696731) Homepage Journal

        The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense. It's a cold reading in a phony clinical setting. The diagnoses is always "more costly therapy sessions".

        This is like the association of soothsayers trying to supress the "secret" of tarot or tea leave reading, because if everybody knows it wont be magic anymore.

        You're wrong. The Rorschach test is not, nor has it ever been a tool for identifying what's wrong with you. It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses. It further allows them to identify what major pathologies might be present, but does not provide a diagnosis. You're essentially implying that any tool which doesn't offer a full-blown diagnosis is akin to superstition and should be discarded.

        By that logic, a stethoscope is a useless tool, since it never provides a complete diagnosis, but a set of data points that can be applied to one.

        • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Endymion (12816) <slashdot...org@@@thoughtnoise...net> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:29PM (#28697353) Homepage Journal

          It's a tool that allows the person administering it to better understand the mental state of the person they're dealing with in a way that doesn't allow them to employ the usual defensive responses.

          Really? And what double-blind study shows this?

          That's just another in the long line of grand assumptions that psychologists make with these kinds of "tests".

          As far as "showing pathologies", how would such idiocy be different from just doing any other kid of cold reading on someone, and why would it have better accuracy?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ajs (35943)

            Really? And what double-blind study shows this?

            There's this fascinating science called psychology that tells us why double-blind studies are valuable. I think you'd like it.

            Snarkiness aside, you'll be glad to know that psychological researchers don't get published without valid experimentation (that's a broad statement, and just as with physics, there are sad exceptions... but on the whole it's roughly correct in both fields). You're conflating pop-psych and psychoanalysis with psychology. Don't do that or I'll start explaining to you that physics is al

            • by MaskedSlacker (911878) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @07:50PM (#28698099)

              The Rorschach test is a holdover from the bad old days of psychology when it was little more scientific than alchemy was in its day.

              There's this fascinating science called psychology that tells us why double-blind studies are valuable. I think you'd like it.

              What the hell was this supposed to mean? His whole point was that there are no double-blind studies supporting your point. Turning around and saying double-blinds are important is not a retort.

              Modern psychology is rather different from psychology in the first part of the 20th century. The Rorscach belongs firmly in the latter.

        • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by RobDude (1123541) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:35PM (#28697441) Homepage

          I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the tool provides a full-blown diagnosis. I think it has to do with what the tool measures.

          A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard. It's not subjective at all. The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed. The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.

          That's to say, it is possible to hear an abnormal heart beat. Or to hear congestion in the lungs. We (as a scientific community) understand how sound works and we know that some things make sounds; and if we hear a certain type of sound, we know it must have a certain of cause. If the cause of the sound is in your lungs and it's a sound that shouldn't be, we know it's a problem.

          The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything. It's some pictures. They don't do ANYTHING.

          You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering. But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind. Someone's answers are highly open for interpretation. Even if we can agree that a certain type of answer or behavior while answering is 'abnormal', we don't know what causes it.

          With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'. With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.

          So, a lot of people don't see the benefit. And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.

          Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.

          If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results. But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.

          I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap. I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.

          • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Elwood P Dowd (16933) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:54PM (#28697631) Journal

            The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything. It's some pictures. They don't do ANYTHING.

            You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering. But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind.

            I think this hilights your misunderstanding of the test. The point is that you compare the patient's responses to the responses of thousands of other people who have looked at the image before. It is NOT a Freudian inspection of a person's subconscious. If you show them something that everyone on the planet agrees looks like a piglet and they say it looks like their mother attacking them with a machete, that is a helpful tool for a psychologist.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ajs (35943)

            A stethoscope doesn't provide a diagnosis...it just allows the user to hear things that normally can't be heard. It's not subjective at all.

            Nor are the results of the Rorschach test. If they are evaluated subjectively, you've done it wrong. It's just a stethescope. I'm not interested in how your responses make me feel. I'm interested in how your responses meet certain basic, fixed parameters. I am essentially listing to the sound of your mental state for certain irregularities which promote one diagnosis over another. That's what a stethescope does, and it's what a Rorschach does.

            The effectiveness of the stethoscope can easily be measured and confirmed. The sounds the stethoscope pick up (typically heart beats/breathing - I'm guessing?) have been *proven* as a useful diagnostic tool.

            Quite true.

            The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything. It's some pictures. They don't do ANYTHING.

            Well, in that sense, a stethescope is just some tubes

          • by severoon (536737) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @07:21PM (#28697861) Journal

            The test does provide interesting info. Not about the subject, though--about the one administering it, to the observers that are always behind the one-way mirror, evaluating that person.

            (Just doing my part to make the psychologists of the world paranoid.)

    • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by xant (99438) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:44PM (#28695979) Homepage

      On the contrary, in order to interpret the results scientifically, you have to have already used them and determined a basis for scoring. How this is classically done with the original Rorschach is a series of markings based on the contents of the respondent's answer. They also score things like whether you pick the card up, whether you turn it around, whether you give more than one answer, etc. Without a fixed means of scoring the blots, you don't have data, you just have hand-waving.

      But there are other tests out there, with their own means of scoring. Some of them even try to generate random inputs.

      • by david_thornley (598059) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:20PM (#28696517)

        They also score things like whether you pick the card up

        Okay, so what are the psychological differences caused by the fact that I can't see things lying on a desk as clearly as I could thirty years ago? Optometrists want to know!

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by RingDev (879105)

        The exercise isn't about what does the patient see compared to what others have seen. The exercise is about how does the patient react compared to how others have reacted.

        And for that, the need for 10 consistent meaningless images is dubious. The fact that the Rorschach test is so well known, and so many of the images have already been shown, and that the expectations that people have of the test while participating in it likely makes using those known images even less effective.

        Any way, this isn't about ge

    • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by clifyt (11768) <sonikmatter.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:47PM (#28696017) Homepage

      There aren't 'correct' answers to the blots, they are images that one uses to project their beliefs and subconscious on.

      The idea is that you won't see them in nature, or anywhere else...but being that the test has been studied, validated and correlated across thousands of individuals, there is a LOT of predictive nature to them. Look at it and tell me what you think of it...I think bunny wabits...ok, 90% of the people that saw this and gave that response grew up to be serial killers.

      I'm not a Freudian by any means...I have never given this exam and really don't see the point in doing so...but I have a background in psychometrics. Letting folks get access to this stuff means that more people will be exposed and the more exposure, along with people putting out statistics about what things mean lowers the validity of the exam.

      But, if ruining a reliable therapeutic technique for others is worth while, by all means, go ahead and publish the images...its not like they are that hard to come by anyways...no one checks licenses these days if you are ordering most exams these days...

      • by twidarkling (1537077) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:01PM (#28696259)

        The images are PD now, putting them on wikipedia won't change that. Beyond that, there have been layperson descriptions of what the test entails for years. Even knowing the test exists invalidates the results to at least a degree, since the person looking will try to say what they think the test-giver wants to hear. While THAT might be diagnostically useful, it's not the same as what the person actually sees.

      • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Robert1 (513674) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:05PM (#28696337) Homepage

        Incorrect. There actually ARE correct answers to the inkblots - no quotes necessary around that 'correct'. The correctness is assigned a number which aggregates over the course of all the blots and assigns a statistical analysis of the level of pathology of the patients psyche. It's actually very robust scientifically and leaves no room for psychological interpretation and is comparable to recall, spelling, or reverse counting tests.

        Rorschach inkblots are not used for projection - on TV they are however. In real life, projection is used as an evaluative tool using a different kind of test. The projective test involves pictures with a very open setup and the patient is allowed to fill in the circumstances of the picture. For instance, one image can be of 3 people sitting around a table with a tree outside, the patient then can fill in what they believe to be occurring, what the characters are saying etc.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by wytcld (179112)

          The correctness is assigned a number which aggregates over the course of all the blots and assigns a statistical analysis of the level of pathology of the patients psyche.

          I've taken this "test," years ago. From that point of view it was an invitation to free association - whether you want to call that "projection" or not. You're saying that from the POV of the test giver my free associations were being scored on a scale of correctness, such that my response to each blot was reduced to a single number? Then

          • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Robert1 (513674) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:48PM (#28696839) Homepage

            I really don't know why your post is filled with such vitriol. Anyway there is nothing secret about the "scientific means" behind it (as much as you wish there was by the fact that you used quotes...). The test is valid because they used an enormously large sample size and a library of several hundred pictures, which through its massive sample size, were able to distill down using statistics to those 10 pictures which had the highest positive predictive value!

            Those 10 pictures were specifically chosen because they were the most deterministic pictures. If I took all of Pollock's works and showed them to tens of thousands of people, and recorded all the responses I'm sure I could produce a handful of pieces by Pollock which have a high correlation among viewers to a specific object - i.e. that one piece is viewed as a 'bat' by 80% of viewers. Taking it one step further, Pollock's art was never even designed to be used in such a way, however the inkblots were from the onset intentionally designed to maximize their correlation, and thus future predictive value.

            I've taken the exam myself with a group of about 10 others as a learning experience. On average, the answers correlated completely except for one individual. By the end, it seemed each person had answered one "wrong" i.e. hadn't seen the "right" image. However, that didn't mean the group had any psychological pathology, as the incorrect answers were not given consistently. A 90% correlation means on average, the average (healthy) person will agree with an image 90% of the time. If a person answers 6 out of 10 wrong, the statistical likelihood of that occurring in a healthy individual becomes suspiciously small.

            That is the power of the inkblots and the science behind them - science without quotes.

            • Re:I thought they.. (Score:4, Informative)

              by BlueParrot (965239) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:02PM (#28698689)

              The test is valid because they used an enormously large sample size and a library of several hundred pictures, which through its massive sample size, were able to distill down using statistics to those 10 pictures which had the highest positive predictive value!

              It's not quite that simple because several of the scoring systems, or even parts of the scoring systems, have been downright proven to over-diagnose problems (as an example the comprehensive system when given to people with no history of mental illness frequently produce results which would imply they are barely able to take care of themselves ).

              There ARE things the test is good at. At as an example it has a sensitivity and specificity to detect schizophrenia of more than .70 ( highlighting that while useful it should never be the sole method of assessment ). Unfortunately there are also a lot of things it is sometimes used for while being complete garbage at. As an example there is no evidence whatsoever that the test can detect sexual abuse, yet quite a few shrinks still use it for that purpose.

              This is the real problem with the test. People don't want to accept that it is flawed because it does have its uses.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by clifyt (11768)

          "Incorrect. There actually ARE correct answers to the inkblots"

          There are RARELY correct or incorrect answers on ANY psychometric exam.

          We take the results and score them...sometimes one answer means one thing, sometimes it means another, sometimes it is there for a baseline, sometimes it is there just to prepare the next version of the exam.

          As for projective test, do you understand what a projective test is? It is one where you project your beliefs onto an abstract stimulus and come up with the result on yo

          • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:49PM (#28696843) Homepage

            Whadda I know.... I just sit in my office designing / validating psychologically sound tests all day...

            You sound angry. Tell me how you feel about this.

        • Re:I thought they.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by CorporateSuit (1319461) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:21PM (#28697277)

          Incorrect. There actually ARE correct answers to the inkblots - no quotes necessary around that 'correct'. The correctness is assigned a number which aggregates over the course of all the blots and assigns a statistical analysis of the level of pathology of the patients psyche. It's actually very robust scientifically and leaves no room for psychological interpretation and is comparable to recall, spelling, or reverse counting tests.

          Inkblots typically just show what part of the picture a person looks at first or what's recently occured in the viewer's occular history. For example, on inkblot 10, I started on the outer edge and worked my way in. It looked like two blue lobsters holding icecream bars. (I recently watched Japanese Bug Fights with my daughter)
          For most blots, if you start by looking in the center, you're more likely to see a [painted] face or a single figure. If you start on the fringes, you'll more likely see two objects interacting toward a center point. Try it out yourself. Look at a blot starting in the middle and make a note of the first thought that pops up. Then try the blot when you look at the outside and work your way in.

          Granted, I didn't learn this from a psychologist, rather from an artist who played with optical illusions. "Do you see a family or do you see an angry skull, or do you just see a pile of rocks?" "I see a family.... I think" "That's because you looked here first. Now focus on this part of the drawing." "Hey, it's a skull!"

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geekoid (135745)

        There are correct answers.

        Those answers would be the ones that keep you out of the loony bin.

        They may not have specific answers, but there sure as hell are right answers.

    • by 2names (531755)
      Where is my face!?!??!
    • by Atrox666 (957601) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:08PM (#28696373)
      If there are only 10 then why are they all pictures of my mother when she's angry?
  • Here they are. (Score:5, Informative)

    by xant (99438) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:41PM (#28695913) Homepage

    the Rorshach ink blots [deltabravo.net]. Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.

    Seriously though, there are a million associative tests, I didn't think anyone even used the original Rorschach any more except to discuss it in beginning psychology classes.

    • Re:Here they are. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:01PM (#28696257) Homepage

      Those are the outlines of the inkblots. Those have been public for quite some time now but psychologists believed they had no significant influence on the reliability of the actual test (which, I guess, means the outlines didn't make the tests less unreliable). The wikipedia images are the actual colored blobs and DO have the desired effect of making a useless test unusable.

  • Lets see... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Q-Hack! (37846) * on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:42PM (#28695917)

    Exposer to to pseudo-science renders it useless??? Now if we can apply that to Intelligent design?

  • Progress of society (Score:3, Interesting)

    by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:42PM (#28695939) Journal

    I can hardly see how debunking what is in essence a subtle placebo as something that is unethical. In by that same stretch, debunking magic would be unethical. Pretty lame really. It's something almost 100 years old. For it to be phased out now due to there being far more accurate psychoanalysis is a good thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Gerald (9696)

      by that same stretch, debunking magic would be unethical.

      Try going to a Penn & Teller show and telling everyone how each trick is done.

  • So what??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Muad'Dave (255648) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:43PM (#28695951) Homepage
    Everyone knows they're all pictures of boobs anyway.
  • Public Domain Man (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:44PM (#28695969) Journal

    If they're in the public domain, then they're in the public domain, and that ends it. I'm sure the APA can come up with some new, copyrighted ink blot tests. Perhaps they could involve images of Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard in various disturbing poses.

  • The blots (Score:5, Funny)

    by DarrenBaker (322210) <darren@flim.HORSEnet minus herbivore> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:44PM (#28695975) Homepage

    Here are some examples of ink blots, and patient reaction.
    http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF233-Psychoanalyst.jpg [pbfcomics.com]

  • by oodaloop (1229816) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:45PM (#28695991)
    The wikipedia page says it made it to public domain in 1992. Why exactly is this news?
  • by mattack2 (1165421) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:46PM (#28696003)

    At least some of them showed up in "Big Secrets" by William Poundstone over 20 years ago. (Great book IMHO, though the sequels go down in quality as he scrounges for more secrets.) He also discusses what types of things are 'bad' to see in them.

  • Suggested reading (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:47PM (#28696037) Homepage

    It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity [wikipedia.org] just doesn't work.

    • Re:Suggested reading (Score:5, Interesting)

      by flaming error (1041742) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:42PM (#28696769) Journal

      Mod parent up.

      Although I generally take "security through obsurity" to mean "the algorithm is the secret". If the whole system relies on exactly these ten blots, this seems more like "the secret is the algorithm". You can't even re-key the lock.

      It's broken, they've been given responsible disclosure, and it's already in the wild. Refusal to patch will just make them idiots, and refusal to publish makes Wikipedia complicit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:49PM (#28696067)

    I went to the Wikipedia page and saw what appears to be ten pictures of vaginas. Is that why everyone is so worked up about this?

  • by adolf (21054) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:50PM (#28696095) Journal

    The website cited for being the source of the image currently at the top of the Wikipedia page is here [geocities.com], with its English counterpart being right here [geocities.com].

    It includes all 10 Rorschach images.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lennier (44736)

      1. Batman
      2. Batman kissing Catwoman
      3. Batman getting out of the Batmobile
      4. Batman
      5. Batman
      6. Batman on Gotham City Bridge
      7. Mr Freeze
      8. The Joker
      9. The Joker
      10. Dead Joker

  • ... because if they aren't on wikipedia, then nobody will ever find them on the internet and the images will be safe forever!
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:59PM (#28696217) Homepage

    Wait until the optometrists discover that Wikipedia is using an uncensored Snellen eye chart [wikipedia.org]. Pssst! The big letter at the top is an "E."

    • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday July 15, 2009 @01:41AM (#28700473)

      Friend of mine is actually an optometrist. Every time he gets his eyes checked he recites the table verbatim from memory without even looking at it, it earned him some strange, and some angry, looks. Mostly because they usually ask "can you tell me what's written there" instead of the, more accurate, "could you read to me what you can read on the chart there".

      And yes, he can tell you what's written there...

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:06PM (#28696339) Homepage

    The earliest publication to the general lay public that I personally know of is their presentation on pages 118-127 of William Poundstone's book Big Secrets, Quill, 1983, ISBN 0-688-04830-7.

    In other words, they were out there before the Web was a gleam in Tim Berners-Lee's eye.

    Anyone know of any earlier publications?

  • by scorp1us (235526) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:06PM (#28696347) Journal

    Back in college, my psyc prof spent some time going over those "personality" screenings and directly told us how to pass. He in effect, gave us the answer key (for those of us taking notes) on how to present ourselves via test results. His statements about how the scoring is done already invalidated the test. He also covered multi-colored ink blots and told us how to handle those too.

    But despite what I know, every time I see an ink blot, I think "ink blot, symmetrical about [X,Y] axis." What's that make me? I don't see anything. Just ink on folded paper. I've stared at these things and my answer never changes. because you know, its still an ink blot.

  • Plate 1 (Score:3, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:17PM (#28696491)

    Hey! Who put CowboyNeal's photo in there?

  • by laron (102608) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:44PM (#28696779)

    See quote in signature.
    Seriously, even without having searched for the blots previously, you just can't grow up without seeing a few of them in movies and such. So, if the test requires secrecy to work, it has failed a long time ago.

  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:35PM (#28697447)

    I can't see the "Bat" one as anything except a bat since I've seen it in batman comic books; saw how he saw it as a bat.

  • by Openstandards.net (614258) <slashdot AT openstandards DOT net> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:41PM (#28697529) Homepage
    GigsVT, can you post a picture of what you are talking about, please?
  • by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:52PM (#28697611) Homepage Journal

    Apparently they think the public is SO stupid that, the ones who are intent on dodging the test are uncapable of finding access to the test images even now.

    there should be an elitism & down to earthness test for scientists to prevent such foolery of mind.

  • oh really (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kartoffel (30238) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @07:23PM (#28697881)

    As long as they're throwing hissy fits about Rorschach tests, they might as well yank the article on eye charts:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen_chart [wikipedia.org]

    Here,
    E
    FP
    TOZ
    LPED
    PECFD
    EDFCZP
    FELOPZD
    DEFPOTEC

    I humbly await the eye doctors of the world to DMCA me.

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...