[WikiEN-l] Rorchach foes strike back

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> The blots aren't harmful and that was never the argument anyway.  It is not 
> necessary the images themselves, but rather the answer sheet that is the 
> problem.  If I know that calling image 1 a "cockroach" means I likely to be 
> paranoid, than I won't say that.  I'll say um.. it's a ... uh.. butterfly a 
> cute fuzzy baby butterfly who wants to give me a big kiss.

This is not correct.  Some of the argument has to do with making the test
wiorthless for people who have seen the images and thought about them.

> No one has stated that the lack of object from any professionals was an 
> argument to keep them.

This is not correct either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach_test/images#Points_of_order

    As far as I know the APA has not made a statement about harm resulting from showing these images, I am not sure about the BPS. The APA source only prohibits psychologists from making test material available to the public. It does not mention harm or go into motive at all, nor does it mention the Rorschach test. Beyond these important corrections, I support this debate. Chillum 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

        Sorry, I amended it to say "test materials (in general)" [8]. You are right in that we haven't been presented with any statements about Rorschach images specifically. –xenotalk 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)TC)