Dealing with Inkblots

[ysabetwordsmith]

One of the most famous psychological tests is the Rorschach or inkblot test.  It's very controversial, with some people arguing it's pseudoscience and others saying it gives valuable insights.  Actually, they're both right.  It has no objective basis in that different people will score the same response in different ways, and that's before  accounting for cultural differences. However, any kind of symbolic material can serve as inspiration for useful conversations.  The problem comes when someone makes binding decisions based on these test results -- that  is the pseudoscience.  It penalizes people for not doing what someone else wanted.

I've been watching this for a long time, and finally found where someone scanned the images online.  Previously you could only find vague replicas.  This page has the full-color cards along with instructions on what the tester wants to hear.  Some of its observations (sexual imagery will get you in trouble, positive interpretations score better than negative ones) apply across many psychological tests.  By memorizing these, you now have two options: tell a tester you're already familiar with the test, which invalidates this and most other psych tests; or cheat on it by telling them what the handbook says everyone should see (or whatever other image you may wish to project).  That's very useful if, as is often the case, the test is being used against you and against your will.  (It's commonly used in contentious legal cases such as divorce or abuse, and sometimes in employment.)  In particular, note that this article highlights the type of lying ubiquitous throughout psych tests: falsely telling someone they can "do anything" or "it doesn't matter" when in fact everything is being scored and difference from the center of the bell curve is heavily penalized.  You really can't rely on anything they say unless you have read the instructions and scoring rubric (if there even is one) for yourself.

However, if you have a psychotherapist you like -- and you really need someone with a high level of experience for this, most counselors won't be able to follow it -- then you can get into awesomely deep territory by discussing symbolism back and forth.  Rorschach cards are great for this kind of exercise.  But so are most types of abstract art, and any kind of symbolic art such as Tarot cards.  If you study the symbolism of colors, shapes, etc. across cultures then it becomes even more illuminating.  Dream dictionaries are great for this because they give you a ton of ideas what things could  mean. You just have to account for the fact that symbolism always includes both a universal and an individual aspect.  Butterflies always have an element of transformation due to their metamorphic biology, but to an individual they might be very sad due to seeing butterflies at a grandparent's funeral.  Plus when you look at the different possible meanings, you can gain insights into how other people think, or spot parallels among several related symbols.  One Tarot card may have 12 possible meanings, but if three other cards all have one overlapping interpretation, that's the one active in this reading. Some branches of psychotherapy are really into this symbolic stuff, and it's ideal for handling some types of problem that don't lend themselves well to logic.  Or just for fun.

Comments

[stardreamer]

One of those pictures looked like a textbook-style representation of the female reproductive system. Another one looked like an X-ray image of the pelvis and kidneys, and the first one looks like an animal skull. There was also one that looked like an animal hide, laid out with the head at the top and the legs & tail at the bottom.

I suspect that all of those would be scored as "negative", the first one for being "sexual" and the rest because they're "morbid".

There was only one where I really had to think a bit to come up with any interpretation that wasn't sexual, because "vulva" was so glaringly obvious. I ended up with "two caterpillars feeding off the same twig".

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I suspect that all of those would be scored as "negative", the first one for being "sexual" and the rest because they're "morbid". <<

Yes, exactly.

When you make inkblot art, you get some things repeatedly just because of how the medium works and bilateral symmetry: birds, bats, butterflies, flowers, etc. Skulls are very common too.

>> There was only one where I really had to think a bit to come up with any interpretation that wasn't sexual, because "vulva" was so glaringly obvious. I ended up with "two caterpillars feeding off the same twig". <<

Anything with two blobs facing each other can be claimed as two people or two animals. Say the people are talking or having fun. Make the animals cute kitties or puppies.

Another good trick is to look for identifiable features. Frex, Card 1 has those pointy bits on top that look a lot like ears. They could be bunnies, donkeys, or elephants. Say bunnies because they are cute and harmless. Card 5 could be a bird, bat, or butterfly because of the wing shapes. But you can argue for butterfly even if you've said it before because of the two projections at top (antennae) and bottom (swallowtails) or moth (because of the backswept wings). Card 8 has two pink blobs each with four little extensions, so they make good animals. Kitties climbing a Christmas tree is plausible due to the bright colors and shapes in the middle.

If you draw a blank, there are some all-purpose topics such as vase, cloud, and fun Halloween mask that are arguably relevant to almost all inkblots and many other abstract images.

[conuly]

If, like the man in the article, you are willing to say for a job interview that all you see are violent and sexual scenes, some of which involve children, then you deserve not to get the job.

Not because the Rorschach test is so reliable, but because you clearly have something wrong with your appropriateness filters.

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

This may be true.

However, I am deeply concerned about the trend of turning job interviews into likability contests. It doesn't matter how nice you are or what shape your head is in, only that you can do the work. Some jobs rely on likability, but these psych tests go far beyond that cluster of jobs.

It also bothers me that a majority of these tests lie to people. They claim that answers are supposed to be completely free and not penalized, then penalize people. The tests aren't really about what shape a person is in, but about how similar they are to other people -- or how gullible they are when told that all answers are "safe." The idea is to take the filters off, but the whole of society relies ON those filters. It tells you nothing about a person's filter effectiveness, unless they realize, "That's bullshit, if I don't say pleasing things, they won't hire me" and keep their filters firmly in place in violation of the instructions. And the test doesn't distinguish between someone who's genuinely seeing fluffy bunnies or someone who's good at saying what people want to hear. Like any security theater, it can create a false sense of safety.

And what happens to all the people who aren't pleasing enough? Nobody wants to give them anything for free. Therefore, they need jobs. Preferably, the less people-friendly folks will seek jobs where they don't have to be nice. But a lot of those jobs have gone and aren't coming back. Almost everything left is servant work of some sort, because much of that can't be outsourced.

It's much the same problem with making released prison inmates unemployable. What are they going to do? Quite often, if shut out of society, they make trouble as a means of survival. Not a great result in my book.

Any time you close a door in someone's face, think about where they have left to go and whether that will cause problems down the road.

Re: Well...

[artsyhonker]

It also bothers me that a majority of these tests lie to people. They claim that answers are supposed to be completely free and not penalized, then penalize people. The tests aren't really about what shape a person is in, but about how similar they are to other people -- or how gullible they are when told that all answers are "safe."

I have experience of processes ("this is not a test, of course, we are exploring together") like this, and they can be deeply damaging.

(Thank you for the entire post.)

Re: Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Yes, the way studies and tests are done -- routinely lying to people -- makes it impossible to rely on any of the information. The best you can do is get the terms explicitly in writing, and if possible, have a lawyer verify them. But most therapists won't tolerate that kind of assertiveness. So clients are left going on their observation that therapists often lie, and withholding information for their own safety, which undermines any possibility of healing.

This is one reason for the rise of things like peer therapy, co-counseling, support groups, and other alternatives to "official" therapy. Dealing with regular people can be safer in some ways, because they're not trained to deceive.

I wish that more reliable and honest care was available, but it rarely is. Only a few schools of counseling emphasize the importance of honesty and respecting the client's agency. Rogerian is among the more notable of these.

Re: Well...

[artsyhonker]

Indeed.

My unpleasant experiences with this were not within a therapeutic framework; they were still harmful.

"Person-centred" is a useful keyword over here, when looking for a supportive therapist.

Re: Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> My unpleasant experiences with this were not within a therapeutic framework; they were still harmful. <<

I've encountered that from teachers and other contexts, and learned very early not to believe anything other people say unless I had sound evidence of their honesty.

>> "Person-centred" is a useful keyword over here, when looking for a supportive therapist.<<

Person-centered and client-centered are often synonyms for Rogerian therapy, but can also refer more broadly to having the client set their own goals.

statements and biases

[callibr8]

>> You really can't rely on anything they say unless you have read the instructions and scoring rubric (if there even is one) for yourself. <<

Based on my experience working as an essay scorer, the existence of a written scoring rubric IS NOT a guarantee either. Nearly every project I have worked on has had at least one "exception case" where the score *I* would assign based on rubric alone is higher than what they have assigned, due to various biases. Yeah, the biases do vary per project - but the vast majority of projects have at least one, and often several.

Not going to be more specific on an open channel, but did want to bring this up ASAP.

Re: statements and biases

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Based on my experience working as an essay scorer, the existence of a written scoring rubric IS NOT a guarantee either. <<

That's true. Many tests and rubrics are very poorly designed.

However, a well-made rubric can identify what things are to be looked for and how they are to be counted. When rational, this makes the results much more consistent and replicable than having no guidelines. I've designed rubrics for things like scoring Pagan literature, broken down into points for plot, setting, character, technical skill, Pagan content (highest weighted category) and so forth.

>> Nearly every project I have worked on has had at least one "exception case" where the score *I* would assign based on rubric alone is higher than what they have assigned, due to various biases. Yeah, the biases do vary per project - but the vast majority of projects have at least one, and often several. <<

Bias is a severe problem in almost all tests. Most biases are hidden so deeply that people can't see them even when you describe them in detail.

For example: A Chinese person scoring the Rorschach would likely expect a Chinese client describing the images to give answers which are more "auspicious" for the cards containing red than the cards which do not have any red, and probably also take off points for not quoting any Confucius. Now imagine what would happen with the same tester scoring an American who doesn't know that red is auspicious or that smart educated people are supposed to quote Confucius (without attributing the source, because of course everyone knows their Confucius).

It's the same going from an American-made and scored test to any subculture or other culture that doesn't share the same background.

Re: statements and biases

[callibr8]

Brilliant example!

I wish that there existed easily accessible, widespread education in learning how to spot biases - including one's own! - and how to overcome them. I think that misuse of testing (such as examples elsethread of using certain tests in completely inappropriate contexts), compounded by tests that don't really measure what they claim they are measuring in the first place, is one of the scourges of L-American society. >_

Re: statements and biases

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I wish that there existed easily accessible, widespread education in learning how to spot biases - including one's own! - and how to overcome them.<<

I wish that too. Instead, all I've seen is dangerous crap about everyone being prejudiced in the same ways, which makes it useless at best and damaging at worst. Like calling all white people racist. That's a belief and an action, not a birth defect of skin tone! >_<

Or confirmation bias, mine is shaped differently than the norm. Most people seem to set theirs and stick with it. For me, it's like pans on a scale: some things are very hard to shift due to heavy data on one side, but I do still note the competing information and attempt to explain it. On some topics I don't have a stance yet because no one model is more compelling and/or the data is generally unreliable.

Being prejudiced against stupid people, that one I don't want to give up.

>> I think that misuse of testing (such as examples elsethread of using certain tests in completely inappropriate contexts), compounded by tests that don't really measure what they claim they are measuring in the first place, is one of the scourges of L-American society. <<

I agree. All over there are tests that are bunk or nearly so, used for major purposes. Most of the "tests" for drugs or bombs or whatnot don't have anything to do with that. They're looking for one or more component chemicals that are not only in the target, but dozens or hundreds of other things. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. That is barely better than convicting someone based on which way a loaf of bread on a string would spin. (Yes, that was a thing.) There's so much cultural slant in school tests that poor kids, people of culture, anyone neurovariant, etc. are just screwed. In some cases it's so bad, they're judging a fish on its ability to climb trees and telling it that it's a bad fish when it can't.

People like tests because administering them with a computer is easy and the results look simple. They don't care if it leaves kids vomiting or slitting their wrists, which is another clue that it's a bad idea.

[fred_mouse]

Interesting! I saw people in almost all of them (there was one flower, and one pair of animals that I remember). Sometimes solo, sometimes facing towards each other, never facing away. Dancing, intimate conversations, gentle touching. One which was either an angel, or someone standing quietly as something was draped over them.

And the 'not taking enough time' is worrying. As a general rule, I had already interpreted the image before I could say "Here I see..." So, penalising people with a particular speed of response/particular visual interaction with the world.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Interesting! I saw people in almost all of them (there was one flower, and one pair of animals that I remember). Sometimes solo, sometimes facing towards each other, never facing away. Dancing, intimate conversations, gentle touching. One which was either an angel, or someone standing quietly as something was draped over them. <<

Yeah, a lot of them have doubled images facing each other. It's one of the commonest results of folding paper over ink. The other most frequent patterns are wings or a central linear blob with some small gaps.

>> And the 'not taking enough time' is worrying. As a general rule, I had already interpreted the image before I could say "Here I see..." So, penalising people with a particular speed of response/particular visual interaction with the world. <<

This test viciously penalizes everything that is different from the majority. Too fast, too slow, both lose you points. Not seeing the same things other people see. Seeing things that other people don't like. The scoring rubric is downright Procrustean. >_

Re: Thoughts

[fred_mouse]

>>This test viciously penalizes everything that is different from the majority

Which is a worry, because many of our gifted (our artists, our bright children, etc) are going to be there. Of course they are different! Apart from anything else, this is something that our communities should be encouraging, and benefitting from, not discouraging. I found myself second guessing how many things was a sensible number to see - should I stop at 3? should I not tell the story of the dance that I'm seeing, the central wheel, etc.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Which is a worry, because many of our gifted (our artists, our bright children, etc) are going to be there. Of course they are different! <<

Exactly. So too, women think differently from men in some ways, but male perspectives are privileged. Anyone neurovariant or with mental issues is just screwed. And of course, it's completely visualcentric, which means people with low visual intelligence find it difficult or impossible to do (just memorize the required answers) while blind people can't do it at all.

>> Apart from anything else, this is something that our communities should be encouraging, and benefitting from, not discouraging. <<

If only.

>> I found myself second guessing how many things was a sensible number to see - should I stop at 3? should I not tell the story of the dance that I'm seeing, the central wheel, etc. <<

Typically 2 in a hostile test. Say one, and stop. There's a point where they're supposed to prompt "What else could it be?" so you want to have a reserve for that.

When using inkblots or other art for inspiration with a friendly therapist, you can go on as long as you like, ideally exchanging and discussing ideas for images. There's a wonderful interaction with this stuff where one person says, "I see a duck," and the other either agrees or disagrees. If they don't see it, you can point and say, "This bit here is the beak, this bubble is the eye, here is the body," etc. and they'll usually go, "Oh, okay! Now I see it."

[society_of_antisocialites]

That reminds me of a test somebody had to take years ago to even talk about diagnoses with a shrink. I think it was supposed to be some kind of screening protocal - a series of multiple choice questions you had to answer online - that was meant to determine possible diagnoses and skew the direction of therapy. Neither of which they were there for.

It wasn't accomplishing what they were there for (which was a referral to someone who could prescribe hormones which, surprise, are actually a mood stabilizer rather than gender related - not long-term therapy at all), and some of the questions were downright wrong. The one for rooting out trans or gender nonconforming people was binarist and infantilizing (phrased something like "if you are a girl, have you ever wanted to be a boy" and vice-versa). They were supposed to say "yes", which is bull for someone who is agender and has never thought themself as anything else.

The person who took it bullshitted all of it to get the diagnosis they wanted sans anything else (except a depression diagnosis because responding negatively on those would have tipped that someone was lying). Being familiar with social conventions and knowing the seed questions helped - the ones that everybody* says yes to like "Do you ever get so angry you want to hurt something?", which will get you flagged for lying if you give the apparently-pleasing answer ("no") to. Instinctive distrust of psychologists may have helped in that instance too.

That person was off well, but I feel bad for anyone who either isn't familiar with the setting or has trouble gauging social conventions/appropriateness of responses. It really does only favor the people who are either already healthy, have a therapist they *trust* and won't get otherwise screwed over for not being pleasing, or can fake it if they don't want to participate.

* Still presumed by the test-makers/graders. I know one or two people who don't get angry in *that* way, and I'm sure there are more for that and who deviate from what the other seed questions are presuming "normal".

- Marx