Thursday, January 10, 2013

Updates-1st week in 3rd Quarter

  1. Post your comments on the blog about your respective articles on the history of the inkblot test by Monday morning prior to the start of class.  Meet me in  Ms. Lambright's room Monday morning for class.
  2. On Wednesday, we will meet in class for our last class of the quarter and finish our artist trading card activities.
  3. The reflection essay will be due on January 21st January 22nd and it is an assessment grade.
  4. We will also have our seminar on January 21st January 22nd on Invisible ManBe ready to conduct a discussion on the questions above.  No additional homework will be assigned during this process.  
  5. I will push your drafts of your EA's on the prescribed titles to February 1, 2013.  Please send them to me via email.  


  1. My main question from the article is "Why were inkblot tests still favored as a way determining a patient's mental state after the creation of the seven flaws. Each one of the flaws by themselves would completely invalidate the data of experimentation. This calls into question the usefulness and validity of these experiments. Also how do psychiatrists differentiate between mentally unstable patients and eccentric patients based on inkblots. The final question I have on this subject is, and I realize this may have been addressed in the article but I may have overlooked it due to font size, Are inkblots stilled used as credible data in determining a person's mental state presently?

  2. As I read about the history of inkblots, I found it very interesting how many researchers took part into developing the modern process of using inkblots. Another point that caught my attention was how they constantly referred to what the patients saw as their “inner cry.” The language used to describe the patient’s result made it seem that what the inkblot results indicate is what the patient truly is in terms of mentally and emotionally. Of course, after noting the numerous flaws within the inkblot tests, I also began to wonder:
    Are psychologists relying to much on these tests to help diagnose their patients?
    How can we categorize people’s true mental stability with just inkblots?
    I can see why they can detect certain mental qualities based on the inkblots, but I question can we really generalize and be bias in what people’s perceptions are. As we know, cultures influence perception, so if given a case in which an inkblot shows a similar object to two people from different cultures, what’s to say that that object has a positive connotation for both people? Inkblots are efficient, but there are a lot of factors that can be questioned. I see the value, but I can’t help but to question this method, even with all the years of usage it has had in the world.

  3. I found it interesting how the entire concept of the Rorschach/Inkblot test came from a simple yet popular game. It took observation on Hermann's end to notice how schizophrenia patients, or simply those who's brains are wired differently, had answers that were not similar to those who were considered to be "normal." On top of this, the attempted printouts of Hermann's selfmade inkblots gave no shading; only solid colors came out. This new addition to the ink blots made it more practical for testing, showing only black and white to contrast one another in order to form the imagined pictures of the patients. This next coincidence in the making of the inkblots is what made the Rorschach test what it is today. On top of Hermann's own scientific thinking and analysis, coincidental factors assisted him greatly.

    The Rorschach test's main purpose, as described by the article, is to provide an image or picture of the individual's psychology and mental structure. It is also to provide some form of understanding of the individual's past and present; the stories and descriptions given of the shown inkblots theoretically reveal subconscious memories, thoughts, and behavioral traits. Extra stories that are seen past the obvious structures of the test mean that that the person, as described in the article, "is telling the examiner something about themselves or their lives...going well beyond the features of the inkblot itself".

    In terms of my experience in class with the inkblot, my seeing of a sacrifice going on in the painting was not seen by another person, but could only be noticed through hindsight, after I explained to class members where I saw what I saw, so on and so forth. My explanation of the picture was more story-oriented, whereas some may have just stated what they saw, such as the types of creatures that appeared to take shape or form. According to Hermann, my sighting of this "sacrifice" says something about my own thought processes and my own experiences by me "revealing more about myself than intended" through my picture description. This test in itself is therefore meant for "leading to better insights into the underlying motivations of [my] current issues and behaviors".


  4. I thought that the article was informative. It gave me good background knowledge on what we were doing in class. Reading about the different test I found that one of the first test created was the Rorshach Ink Blot Test. However this test had 7 major flaws. The more reliable test seems to be the Holtzman Ink Blot Test. I think that it is interesting how scientist can take what we see from an ink blot and assess us with personality traits or tell us our "inner cry". I however do not see the test as that reliable because our perception of a certain ink blot may be changed day to day depending on what we are experiencing in our lives. I also wondered how the scientist could have calculated all the possible responses to each ink blot. When we participated in the test the range of answers seemed almost infinite. Even though there was some overlap in what we saw for example many saw a monster; Others saw fish, dinosaurs, a sacrifice, and some saw nothing. Due to this range of answers i think that it may be hard to predict every response that every person could give.

  5. Inkblot techniques were used for psychological tests in clinics but some found them “subjunctive and “projective”. They are said to trace back to Leonardo Da Vinci and are used to test imagination, personality, and intelligence. I think “inkblots” started up randomly but as people looked more into it, they found a psychological benefit about it. I don’t really see how it measures intelligence but based on the inkblot activity we did in class, I can understand how it could test imagination and personality. I think its purpose is to tap into a person’s brain and try to figure out how they think and why and how other things such as the environment and an individual’s mood and personality could affect it. In terms of psychopathology I think it could be somewhat effective in “measuring” or trying to figure out a person’s “inner cry” but they are limitations to consider. Common limitations as mentioned in the article are its reliability (test-retest reliability/accuracy) and the test incapability of providing logical evidence.
    --Jayeon Mayele--

  6. I thought it was crazy that they were creating a psychological test off a child's game. One thing that struck me about my article "History of the Rorschach Inkblot Test" was that neither of the scientist really addressed the problems with perception due to background, age, gender, and etc. In my opinion, there cant be a universal meaning for something among human beings because of the great variation in our cultures. While reading the article I thought what personality types classify or raise flags of psychopaths. I related the picture we looked at in class were Josh thought it was about a sacrifice and I thought it was a man being attacked by wild dingoes does that raise flags of psychopaths because we both had a "dark" view of the inkblot picture.

  7. While doing the inkblot activity we all saw different things. The different things we saw were due to the angle of the paper that we saw and our past experiences. For example, Paige saw an iguana on a stick. Some people have never seen an iguana so they can't recognize with that. I was in a group with Paige and Guyvin. I focused on the black first and that was how I was able to see a jack-o-lantern and a mini penguin.From Guyvin's angle he saw a dragon, a puppet, donkey, and toes. Paige saw saw a dragon, sea horse, and an iguana on a branch.

    Before doing this activity I thought that inkblots were used for crazy people and what they saw could identify with their thoughts. From reading he article , I learned that inkblot tests originated back to Leonardo Da Vinci in the fifteenth century. By the 19th century it was seen as more of a game. As time went on, inkblots were associated with how one's mind works. Today they are used in psychiatric, and psychological fields of study.

  8. I thought that the history on the inkblot test was interesting. The inkblot test was originally a game that children played called Blotto. I thought that it was amazing to see that an innocent game has been developed into such a test that can determine whether or not one is psychologically stable. Even though there has been decades of research and studying on the inkblot test, I personally don't think it is a valid way of projectively measuring the personality of a person. How can we tell a person that there are imbalances within them if their interpretation of the inkblot is not the same as ours, or what is expected? This inkblot test can affect a person's entire future based on an interpretation.


  9. While reading the article on the history of the inkblot test, I came up with a surprising knowledge issue:

    "To what extent do political ideologies influence research in the human sciences?"

    I began arriving at this KI after noticing the dates that Hermann Rorschach was creating his psychological test: between 1917 and 1922 (the year of his death) in Russia. At that time, Russia was engulfed in civil war and terror because of a communist revolution. It is possible that Rorschach was a communist, and if that was the case, then his ideology may have had a significant influence on how he developed his now famous Rorschach test. This is where I got my KI from.

    I found it somewhat interesting that Rorschach, in a sense, avoided both quantity and quality and went instead for classification in his original scoring method.


  10. My article was the “History of Rorschach Inkblot Test”. This article gave insight on the history of inkblot test ad how they were used in different types of societies. Some artists used inkblots to challenge the thinking, imagination, and personality of their observers. I find it interesting that inkblots were used in art work of the fifteenth century because it shows one of the main aspects of art. Art is based on culture, perspective, and perception, all aspects that inkblots challenge.

    The article discussed the failures of using inkblots in psychological analysis such as differences among people and test-retest reliability. Some advantages of inkblot tests included the test taking time. The author gave the example that the test could be completed by a patient waiting for their turn at a medical clinic or hospital.

    I think the use of inkblots in psychological analysis can be a tricky subject because not everyone has the same thought processes or the same ideas. The inkblot tests were based on general consensus of a large group of people but what about the outliers? Should other people really be criticized or punished for having different ideas and thinking processes?

    ~Jasmine BW

  11. 1)Imagination/creativity isn't analyzed which means there is no accurate answer.

    2)The test intentions here meant for a specific mental disorder, so does it mean it is accurate for others?

    3)The purpose of the test is to find out someone's honest thoughts now in the explanation for phase 2 says that people tend to discard the answers they see as inappropriate. So is this really an accurate psychological analysis.


  12. The history of the Inkblot test seemed very interesting to me. While reading the history I realized and actually thought about the different thoughts one gets from seeing various pictures of shapes on paper. I began to investigate in my brain how one actually thinks after realizing that people with schizophrenia observed it and obtained different types of conclusions. The history is very interesting and very mind blowing. Many people would not understand the reasons for such tests, but to me they seem very intriguing and interesting to not only experiment on one’s own thinking but to see how one sees the introspection of images presented to our brain. I started thinking and looking about the Inkblot test we did in class and realized that from many angles we all saw various things, which connected to the many ways of knowing which we use in our daily life for cognition. Many used reasoning as a way to decipher the Inkblot which I called “abstract,” but others may have used perception to show the influence of one’s own belief and the different views which can be depicted from a piece of paper with Ink. In conclusion, I believe that the experiment was very interesting and that the history allows one to understand the origin and purpose for such tests, and allow us to understand the human brain a little more rather than staying with a curious existence.


  13. I think that the article gave a different perspective about the activity we did in class with the inkblot. According to the article, there would be a set of expected responses that each tested person should receive in order to determine if there is some psychological issues with that person; most people in the classroom said monsters, therefore there was some standards for testing with the inkblots. On the other hand, the inkblots are unreliable because of the testing categories that were used and the lack of connection between the results and the person's creativity. In addition to the statistics of the experiment, I personally feel that this use of art to diagnose someone is unreasonable because someone might look at an inkblot in a different way than another. In our class period some said they say babies and randomness,while some said a monkey though the majority said monsters; Would you diagnose that person with lack of detachment or something else? On contrary to that thought, the aim of the experiment was to show the "inner cry" of the tested person, which I think it could possibly reveal to the experimenter the perception of the person that wouldn't have been revealed otherwise; like we always say, your perception is the product of your thoughts and your experiences. In conclusion, there have been some efforts in modifying the inkblot tests, but it was and is still unreliable.

  14. Nathaniel Henderson
    History of the Rorschach Inkblot Test

    While reading this article, I questioned the reliablility of this test. This test is used to study imagination, thinking, intelligence, and personality. I thought about how all these things are used by our own individual minds. This article in my opinion shows how other ways of thinking like intuition and imagination are also important to the human body. Also, another thing that made me question the reliability of this article was the lack of evidence. Within the article, evidence lacking to support this article. All they did was show streps to presenting the experiment/test but where is the evidence that this test is reliable in detecting personality and showing out "inner cry"?

  15. I think that inkblots are an interesting way to see the depth of a persons creativity and the way they process images. I believe it is a good way to show different personality types and the way they see life. The article talks about how inkblots were once used as a game. I think that one of the most interesting things about the inkblots is that no answer is wrong.

    - Jazmine A

  16. -Paige
    From doing the inkblot test in class I can tell that no one will ever have the right perspective of what can be seen on the inkblot. In the article "The History of the Inkblot Test" Hermann Rorschach inkblot was created to measure personality but then became a tool, as a psychological test to understand the way people were to think. The idea of the test came from a popular game of that time, charades. But everyone perceives things differently and something that may look like a flower to one person can look like a beetle to the next person. The original inkblot test was to profile people with schizophrenia or other mental disorders (which makes sense now to see why psychologist use the test to test the mental competence of killers). To score the test you use the following codes: form, movement, chromatic color, achromatic color, shading-texture, shading-dimension- shading-diffuse, for-dimension, and pairs and reflections. These codes are used because people respond to the inkblots in a complicated detail way the concepts blend everything together for the complex answers. I don't think inkblot test work all the time because killers can think about happy joyful thoughts but just messed up in the brain and people who seem normal think about ways to kill there boss just for saying they had a terrible idea. The test may have worked during that time period but today it's a whole new story because technology has advanced us as a people there are many ways to hide real thoughts and feelings.

  17. I find the Rorscharch Inkblot Test to be very interesting. I see it as though one is battling their physical eyes against their inner eyes (perception). Ironically, in Bio we just learned about how the eye and brain works together. Our physical eye receives the actual picture upside down and a displacement of objects from what’s on the left to be on the right, and vice versa. Since this test was used to “produce a profile of people with schizophrenia (or other mental diseases)”, is it possible that their descriptions or responses don’t fit the “norm” due to the lack of cooperation between brain and eye? When I was in my group and we were handed an inkblot, I saw something totally different from what Jessica saw because we viewed it at two different angles. I generally did not like viewing the Inkblot in the position I was in because no one else saw what I saw. Then when referring to those in the class who didn’t see anything, according to this article that displays signs of little projection, as opposed to one who concocted an entire story with their inkblots. This makes me question the liability of this test, because initially I saw nothing either, I just saw figures. But one thing I do respect about this article is the procedure of how these tests were conducted. They were taken seriously (when it stated that only properly trained psychologists could administer the test) and diligently (in the specific ways that the blots were shown, and the response were recorded and categorized). But honestly where is the line drawn between what is seen, and what is thought to be seen? Does a general consensus make it correct, or simply common?


  18. In reading the articles "The history of Inkblot testing" It explains the process of inkblot testing and how it comes about.What I don't understand is how do they truly know the image form in the individual is common? Don't they considered the environment,background,and age can play a role in how people depict things.Also wont psychological be biased in making a decision on a individual categories just because one shows familiar signs, wont they miss a unique feature. In the article of Rorschach I feel it foreshadows on how diagnostics would be done.Also how ideas are never new but shown in a lucrative way.The articles are quite similar and show psych home in opinion are made.

    ```````````esther `````````

  19. I think it's cool that the idea of inkblots just turned into a important part of psychology and c checking for mental conditions without the intentending to be for that cause. I also think it's cool that the data from the inkblot testing can tell you a lot about yourself and others. Some of the stuff that is used to determine the quality of art is also incorporated into the formation of responses characteristics that psychologist use to label peoples conditions and what they might be going through.

  20. Lovely-
    The general idea of the inkblot test is just like a reflecting mirror to the person examining it, except that it is a distorted image of a figure that has to be interpreted by the person examining it. Everything, movement, description, and perception, of the person examining it reflects back to their personality as they are examine by psychologists as well. However, psychologists use techniques that are designed for them to use only and not by some common people because then the inkblot test would be examined wrong if not done by psychologists. Moreover, the inkblot is printed as some figure. The interpretation of the figure is dependent upon the person's perception; how she/he sees it in his/her point of view based on experience, interest, etc., which may draw their personality. This might as well be accurate because in general personality is shaped by our own experiences, interests, and perspectives; argument of nature and nurture (from Psychology) may also come into place. Moreover, over history validity, accuracy, and reliability of inkblot test has been assured as updated. Since Rorschach's invention of it from 1921, many other doctors continued and accumulated up to his work since he was not able to finish his work after he died four years later he started his research on the test. The fellowship of doctors and skeptical researchers allowed the original inkblot test from Rorscharch to be more accurate since they accumulated limitations and mistakes from the test, which allowed the test to improve. Furthermore, in application of the test, it is more like something that proves the quote, "what you say is what you are" in this particular study.

  21. I think the inkblot testing was very obvious and not enlightening to a new idea. For example, the section explaining that the testing would prove if there is projection going on if a person would give depth about what they think about the inkblot is shows nothing more than an everyday idea. Of course you would have projection going on if you are alive and your brain is active. The article also explains that the person may tell you something about their lives; I dont think that everyone would link their everyday lives to the examination of the inkblot. Also, the five testing areas were soon found not to be...So how is the test supposed to become reliable of even the founders cannot decide what the outcome of dominance are? This testing just seems jumbled and not well thought out to be a "psychological" way of understanding the human mind...

  22. William:
    After reading the articl, I started to add my experiences with the test itself. first of all, I'm not trying to say that I have been tested to see if I am schizophrenic, but I have experienced the practice of inkblots, though I highly doubt the doctor even knew what he was doing. On a personal note, I don't believe that the original scientists that made the procedures truly knew how to actually test the experiment. first, the original test was done with color cards as well, which makes no sense since the color itself emphasizes new images. Although,as told by Hepburn in my Bio class, the experiments we perform are in trial and error style, however it still seems that even the first scientist to go about this experiment should have known what color would do to a person, even with the limited technology. As for the cultural aspect, I believe that the test is beginning to represent something else is other less developed countries. Rather than a schizophrenic test, it has become the "less thought out way" to test a child's development stage as he or she grows. This then raises the question, who defines a child's level of development? Or even what defines the child's development level? Personally, I think that the child's development should be based on how the child is attentive to the subject at hand, whether its describing an inkblot or following a conversation. this is because the doctor could then identify that the child has a mental disorder, since most actually make the person less attentive. Children who are still inattentive even without having some kind of disorder could then mean that the parent is not as active as an authoritarian parent should, and more parents would have better parenting skills. Furthermore, I feel that the people who define a child's development level should consist of multicultural scientists or doctors who preferably have specialized in either pediatrics or neurology. This however, is more of a idealistic view of my perception.

  23. After reading "The History of Inkblot Test", I realized that this was not only a psychology test, but also a major reflection of how art is directly related to perception. When the class recieved a sample Inkblot test, when interacting with other classmates, I noticed that many similar opinions were formed, and others were different. This could be based on the angle in which we were to look at the picture, but after reading the article, I realized that it's a psychological perception. For example, Linda, who was sitting beside me, saw most of the things I did, and opened my eyes to form other shapes we were familiar with as human beings, such as what a described as "Monsters". Michael, however, who was sitting across from us, viewed the picture viewed the picture as "Randomness". Linda and I were able to form various familiar aspects, in which Michael may not have formed when seeing the picture.
    Language also played a role in describing observations, in which ours was moderately descriptive. We pulled a couple minor descriptive words in order to come to one major description word. But different words such as "body parts" and descriptions such as "eating each other or something else" we brought to the table and needed to be explained in order to fuse perceptions.
    I was able to conclude that perception in art is important to the eye. How people view art can be a direct relationship to how they view the world. Is this an emotional appeal? Does the way we percieve and form opinions on art a reflection on emotion?


  24. I do not believe that people should be considered psychological abled or disabled based on a test. We as humans process things differently. Just because one eye can see something does not mean another can. For an example there was a picture that we viewed in class and everybody but myself and Micheal did not see it.After trying various of ways to make me see I finally saw what everybody was seeing. So would that make me inadequate? Will I be diagnosed with something because from my perspective I cant see what everybody sees. From this article I was utterly confused. What exactly was the purpose? When in the article it stated that "Once a person cycles through the 10 inkblots once and tells the psychologists what they saw in each inkblot, the psychologists will then take the person through each inkblot again, asking the person who is taking the test to help the psychologist see what they saw in their original responses". Is that a trick? Personality of that individual will shine through based on their emotions, reasoning for certain movements, and prespective. So a test should not be valued as anything important.


  25. The way inkblots became popular over the years is very interesting. Psychologists now use something that was previously used as a game in order to view what others perceived in the inkblots. I really do believe that this technique is legitimate because of they way different people perceive them. For example, when we conducted this experiment in class, some saw much more detail then others. Some called the images "monsters" and some referred to them as "just animals". Therefore, I believe this technique is very useful because it appeal to all of the WOKs and can certainly show the differences in perception. This experiment proves that psychological traits in human being can never be universal because it varies significantly in different parts of the world

  26. Where did these names come from? the Beck, Klopfer, Hertz, Plotrowski, and the Rapaport-Schafer. I like how they came up with a plan, tested it out a figured that there was something wrong with there plan. Instead of them coming up with 5 systems, they came up with 5 "uniquely different Rorschach tests." It was interesting to me that he combined all of the components from the 5 systems to come up with an alternate scoring system. It seems like they out a lot of work into this for it to just be a personality measurement. I think its cool that they can tell, or judge a person by what they said about a "picture" and can tell what there mind is doing. The way they break down the scoring is very unique and interesting. Overall i found this article very interesting..


Thanks for posting!!