Talk:Projective test

Inkblot image
Over the past two years there has been considerable debate, on the talk page of Rorschach test article, about whether or not the display of the image of the inkblot from the first of the 10 test cards allows for the possibility of harm because of the effect of unwitting pre-exposure to a subject who subsequently undergoes the test.

The bulk of the discussion over the display of the image is contained in a review at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. The conclusion reached was that there was consensus to display the image only in the lead section of the Rorschach test article. Since all other locations were over-ruled or were not fully considered, the image should be deleted from all other locations, including this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight, consensus rejected pretty much every attempt to suppress this image on the Rorschach test article, therefore it should be removed from this article? What makes your points any more valid here than they are there? Please seek consensus before removing this image. If you can find a better image to represent Projective test I will certainly consider it. But no image is not better than this image. Chillum  15:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial google search for "Projective test" "public domain" yeilded only Rorschach inkblots. There are many such tests, perhaps you know of another that is in the public domain? Chillum  16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Gosh that was a swift response, less than three minutes. There was a separate but related debate as to whether non-display constitutes "supression", But that aside, this article is not about the Rorschach Test specifically but about Projective Tests in general. It is misleading to suggest, by showing only this iamge, that Projective Tests mean Rorschach tests alone. It seems safer to remove the image here until consensus deems it is really needed. I don't recall any consensus about the use of the image in this or any other page. The discussion of whether or not Wikipedia is the handmaiden of Google Images also continues. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your logic. Showing a picture of one type of test does not imply that all of that type match the picture. Even if there was such a misconception it could be addressed in the caption. We don't need a consensus to do what we always do, we need a consensus or at least a good reason to go against the status quo. If you want to remove the image from this page find a consensus to do so. I suggest the best way is to find a better image than this one, one that provides more informative content and is more relevant. If you can do this then everyone is happy. But I have not been given any reason to remove the image other than those already rejected by the community. Chillum  16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also what exactly do you mean by "safer"? Safer for Wikipedia, or safer for an outside organization? Chillum  16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, for some reason an image now springs to mind of someone administering a projective test to a subject, which includes a small view of the `picture' being used. By "safer" I meant safer for the wikipedia reader, and that the amount of harm that may result from display of the image (which can never be disproved) should not be deliberately increased by its display here. I was trying to err on the side of caution, until the debate over "harm" in the main article had concluded. But it seems that we will have to wait to see what emerges there before any image change can be made here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be a terrible duplication of effort to rehash this whole debate here. Just like on Talk:Rorschach test as it is here, the harm you claim has yet to be demonstrated, lets keep that part of the debate in one place.


 * There certainly is room for image change here if it is based on reasoning that has not already been rejected, such as a better image to replace it. Chillum  16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The harm claimed is also, scientifically, undemonstrable it seems. That's the point. In the absence of proof either way, it would be wise for wikipedia to listen to the professional opinions of those who use the test. But I agree wholly about not wasting effort by duplication of debate here. It just seemed to me that here ought to be at least a pointer to the wider controversy. Yes I certainly agree that a better image should be found for this article, if possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it would be could not be demonstrated. According to this source The Controversy Over Exner’s Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: The Critics Speak in the section titled "The CS Norms Are Seriously in Error" multiple studies are mentioned that examine otherwise healthy people's reaction to the test compared to norms, this exposes them to the test. I see no reason whatsoever that the harm cannot be demonstrated, it simply has not been demonstrated.


 * From No original research: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."


 * We do in fact need a reliable source, not just the opinions of Wikipedians, even professional opinions. Chillum  17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can describe the (ethically sound) procedure that would need to occur in order to generate statistically significant data that would prove that harm arises from pre-exposure to an inkblot image (or to any other projective test item, for that matter), and whuch could then be included in a "reliable source", I would be very pleased to hear it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not my job to construct an experiment to prove your point. If you have a point of view that you wish to have an effect on the article then you need to demonstrate it through reliable sources, not through opinion. I am not asking for scientific proof, I am asking for a reliable source stating precisely what is being claimed. I for one am not convinced that this harm even exists, I would think that if it was true that there would be reliable sources stating such. Chillum  17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's your job to simply describe how such an experiment could be constructed, not to construct it. Otherwise, please agree with me that such evidence is logically unobtainable. In my view the only "reliable" source which may eventually come to light will be based on expert opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly is not my job to do so. I am not the one trying to convince someone that showing the images causes harm. Why on Earth are we rehashing this way over here away from everybody else involved? This is not a different debate lets simply continue it at Talk:Rorschach test instead of filling yet another talk page up with megabytes of debate. Chillum  21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am simply arguing that such evidence is logically unobtainable. But quite. Let's. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am arguing that basing editorial decisions on an unprovable concept is even more misguided that basing it on an unproven concept. You are basically saying that your point is provably unprovable and that we should thus follow it. That is a non sequitur. Chillum  23:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's carry on here then. I am saying that harm cannot be (ethically) proven either way in terms of conventional scientific evidence and that, in the absence of proof, wikpedia ought to err on the side of caution and take heed of what the relevant professional organisation(s) and real users of the test tell us. This is becase harm may result if we don't. There seem to no professional organisation(s) and no real users of the test telling us "there is definitely no possibility of any harm". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By that logic we should obey the views of creationists at the Evolution article because we can't prove people won't go to hell. No, if you want Wikipedia to change its editorial practices based on a concept, you need to prove that concept. Chillum  00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not extending logic anywhere. I'm arguing that both the users and subjects of psychometric tests such as the Rorschach ought to have some protection from the over-exposure of test materials. If I want Wikipedia to change its editorial practices I may choose to do so by reasonable suggestion, not by producing evidence that can never be produced. But I thought that the popular link between Charles Darwin and hell had been discounted some time ago? In fact, as you mention it, who has proved to us the concept of hell, so that we can have that Wikipedia page about it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you cannot change Wikipedia editorial practices with a reasonable suggestion, you need evidence. Once again I will quote the relevant policy: From No original research: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."


 * You say "If I want Wikpedia(sic) to change its editorial practices I may choose to do so by reasonable suggestion, not by producing evidence", but policy does prohibit you from drawing on your personal knowledge without citing your sources Chillum  00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that my personal knowledge counts for anything here. Reasonable suggestion might well include sources and those sources might include evidence and that evidence could be based on research, but that research could not offer "scientfic proof" since the experiments required would not be possible. So it seems that our viewpoints about Wikipeida policy may not be incompatible. But, in the absence of any specific suggestion for a better image here, I suggest that discussion continues at the Rorschach article talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we are just repeating ourselves here. Chillum  13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would be easy to come up with a Draw-A-Person Test image. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good suggestion, Doc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the inkblot. I mean, meh. --LjL (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the inkblot. If the Rorshach is a sound test it should not be compromised by a display of its materials. If the Rorsharch is an unsound test it should not be shown as an exemplar of all Projective tests. And in either case it has its own article where this image may be very easily seen. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Szondi Test
Although less well known, the inclusion of the Szondi testt as one of the lesser known projective tests seems to me to be worthwhile. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Inadequacy of the Rorschach test section
The section on the Rorschach test is short to the point of failing to reflect any of the positive and negative assessments by professional psychologists, psychiatrists, and their associations. Since there is currently a deep controversy concerning the Rorschach test and its use in clinical psychology, it should be reflected in WP to maintain WP:NPOV. I am not a mental health professional myself, so I cannot supply proper wording. But the inadequacy here seems glaring to me. David Spector (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. But I'm not sure any editor needs be "a mental health professional" to be able to more successfully summarize the main article here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)