Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 11

Cultural differences
An excellent resource for this section is the entire issue of Journal of Personality Assessment, International Reference Samples for the Rorschach Comprehensive System, vol. 89 Supplement, 2007. I don't have a link to it that can be accessed without a subscription, but if someone is resouceful enough you might be able to get your hands on it. If I can help with that, let me know. It has a lot of technical information, but if someone is willing to put in the time to try to digest it, it could be useful. Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC posted
I've created Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Would editors please go there to add statements in the appropriate sections, so that others can endorse them? Once the first statement is up, I will start posting the RfC in various places e.g. village pump etc. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Two world views
What we have here is the collision of two world views. Each side is willing to maybe make some small concessions but none that would bring the two sides close enough to ever reaching consensus. I see no potential end in sight for this ongoing debate... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where I see some possibility for understanding (and the only reason I stick around here), is that I think we all actually share the same goal. I came to the test pages precisely because I wanted to help people understand psychological tests, so that they wouldn't seem so mysterious, bizarre, and potentially threatening.  I think that one of the worst things the field of psychology has to wrestle with is that people don't understand what we do, and there really is no reason that questions can't be answered clearly, concisely, in understandable language.  I would love it if we could find some way to trust each other. Mirafra (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Trust depends on context. I will be quite willing to trust a psychologist as such when I actually consult one or undertake therapy. That goes for any medical profession, and other professions, too. But I won't automatically trust their judgment on what to include or leave out of a Wikipedia article (even a Wikipedia article about something in their discipline), because that's the wrong context. Hell, I won't even trust them about information in the article, or I wouldn't insist on providing sources for every statement! (By the way, I'll take this chance to add that this article is awfully unsourced in some pretty sizeable parts; at least, the parts I added are thoroughly sourced, although you say they are wrong anyway). --LjL (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Card size
The cards I have, from 1964, are 17 x 24.5 cm, not 16 x 24. Have they since shrunk? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Professional complaints will occur
The simplest thing to do here is to report the image poster to the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons and to the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, both of which have jurisdiction here. This is no threat, simply a statement of fact of what will ultimately occur here. Particularly because the poster has given the media provocative interviews; inter-professionally insensitive. Probably an additional aspect here is the doctor's attempt to practice outside his competencies. So at least 2 grounds. It is true that someone can find both blots and interpretations in various forms, and that this is also a potential challenge and violation of the integrity of the test, but to make this so readily available will ultimately provide test takers with an easy way to invalidate the use of the test for all future uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.133.40 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons the licensing board for physicians, or is there a separate board for that? Also, would the Canadian Medical Association have any interest in this matter? Ward3001 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the images are public domain (a fact everyone seems to forget) going after this doctor would just turn the whole mess into more of a media circus then it already is. He provided less information than is available to someone who takes the time to go looking through the publicly available material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that anyone "go after this doctor", but the issues of practicing outside of one's area of competence and claiming expertise that one does not have are often concerns of medical and psychological licensing boards. That has nothing to do with the images per se. Ward3001 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Sask Medical Association is the advocacy group for physicians, the Sask College of Physicians and Surgeons is the licensing authority, the Canadian Medical Association is a fraternal or association of colleagues. This doctor works for the Five Hills Health District http://www.fhhr.ca/community.htm who would also have an interest in his behaviour. Ultimately also the Sask Ministry of Health - who pays all the health bills in the province would probably have an obligation of some kind. The poster made this job-relevant by posting non-anonymously and with reference to his profession and work place. No doubt as an non-psychologist expert in psychological testing, he is also a non-lawyer expert in copyright laws, a non-statistician expert in reliability and validity matters including those with psychological tests, and perhaps also a non-ethicist expert in ethical practices of other professions, and also a human resources expert in the sense of security other professions have in their profession. I don't think criticising other professions as a group or as individuals in media interviews is considered a good idea professionally, but he has shown expertise in that, and in bringing controversy to himself. The error here may ultimately taking matters into his own hands and deciding that his interpretation of copyright law for these images and interpretation trumps any other issues, including those of professionalism, his and that of others. There is both the issue of the release of images and related info, and the doctor's conduct after the controversy occurred.

Stray copyright arguments

 * Never mind that I have found evidence that all the plates have been on the internet since at least 2003 and that links you to SPARC who has all 10 plates. As I said this horse has been out of the barn for a LONG time.  As far as copyright goes THE IMAGES ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN BOTH THE US AND SWITZERLAND .  That is not an "interpretation" that is a cold hard FACT. Go to Cornell University and look up their US copyright FAQ in PDF format] and see what it says about "Before 1923": In the public domain due to copyright expiration.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In front of me I have a set of ten Psychodiagnostik "Tafeln" (Psychodiagnostics Plates) by Hermann Rorschach, published by Hans Huber, Medizinischer Verlag (Medical Publisher), Bern, distrubuted in the USA by Grune & Stratton Inc, New York, and printed in Switzerland. Each of the ten cards bears the following statement printed on the reverse: "Copyright 1921 (renewed 1948)". Could anyone please explain exactly what this means? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a true statement, for all I can tell: the images were originally copyrighted in 1921, and the copyright was renewed in 1948 (at least in the US, copyright protection used to last shorter than it does now, but it could be explicitly renewed). It's expired now anyhow. --LjL (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. So how long did copyright last for these items after its renewal in 1948? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that exactly about the US. I just trust Cornell when it says works created before 1923 are now unconditionally public domain, regardless of renewal. --LjL (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you LjL. Yes that source seems eminently trustworthy and is very clear. I guess the Copyright Term Extension Act effectively swept away all that came before it. I am sorry to be banging on again about copyright when everyone else is perfeclty satisfied that the images are wholly public domain, because that is what US law seems to have decided. But I am less clear about the situation in Switzerland, the country of origin of the images, and whether or not they have been re-published there with copyright extensions. The way that internet images, as opposed to printed ones, are judged against copyright law is also unclear to me at present. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, keep in mind that to apply for inclusion on the English Wikipedia, US copyright is quite enough (there are, indeed, some countries that have anomalies in copyright law making it unlikely that a given work will be public domain there). This is not the case for Switzerland, though, as far as I know: check the relevant section of the article.

Bruce, there's no need to tell anyone "never mind" or to shout at us in bold letters. This issue has nothing to do with how long the images have been in the public domain or on the internet. There are other issues pertaining to this section. Unless you have suddenly become an expert on professional ethics and licensing board jurisdictions, please don't tell us to "never mind"; let others discuss this according to WP:TALK. Ward3001 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When people keep bringing up the "interpretation of copyright law" nonsense I have every right to yell in bold letters. Rorschach died on April 2, 1922 and in Dec of that year Switzerland passed a retroactive copyright of author's life + 30 years and the US had this really bizarre date of publication + 28 years with one renewal of 28 years.  So you had Rorschach going public domain in Switzerland in 1953 and in the US in either 1949 or 1977 depending on if his heirs remembered to actively renew the US copyright.  Even though it is called the Copyright Act of 1976 it didn't go into effect until Jan 1, 1978 and only affected works that were still copyrighted at that time under the old law.  So Rorschach's plates have been public domain in his native Switzerland for 56 years (the 1955 law was not retroactive as had been the 1922 law) and in the US a minimum of 32 years.  I should mention that thanks to the Copyright Act of 1976 and later Sonny Bono law you have this really bizarre situation where works are public domain in their author's native lands but not in the US.  For example Conan Doyle's Holmes stories are public domain in UK and the Commonwealth but most of the Casebook stories are NOT public domain in the US and won't become such until 2018-2022 (1923 through 1927+95).--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

-I fail to see the point about whether the images or information is in the public domain in one or another countries. Bruce misses the point entirely. It's about professional misbehaviour. And provocatively compounded by the poster's behaviour in the media. Primum non nocere. It is also possible to find items and info on other tests, as well as how to "fool" them. Wikipedia is about information, so it is no wonder that other sorts of issues are poorly understood, such as test standardization, norms, protection of test integrity etc. But there are those who can be held to account. Copyright is a minor issue in the posting of these images and related info from a professional perspective.-


 * Yes, Bruce has missed the point again. And Bruce, no you do not have the right to yell in bold letters. You have been told repeatedly that there are much more important issues in this section than copyright. And regardless, yelling in bold letters is uncivil and against standards of conduct on Wikipedia. So I will kindly repeat my request that you stop yelling, stop telling others to "never mind", stop assuming the only issue here is copyright, and allow others to discuss these matters here according to WP:TALK. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some other sources of Rorschach plates: "The Nuremberg Mind" (1975) and Poundstone's "Big Secrets" book (1983).  This horse had been out for a LONG time.  Little late to be locking the barn door.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And what does this have to do with the major issues here: licensing board jurisdiction, practicing within one's area of expertise, and claiming expertise that one does not have? Ward3001 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would the licensing board care about public domain images and where did Heilman ever claim he had expertise in a field outside of his own? Hayou, Carter (July 31, 2009  "Moose Jaw doctor draws ire over Rorschach on Wikipedia" The Moose Jaw Times Herald states "In his defence, Heilman said the inkblots have no copyright and are already widely accessible (with a little research) in library books or on other websites."  Exactly the points I raised before even seeing that article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

- He made comments in the media denigrating a profession and showing misunderstanding of the basic principle of test security. It matters not one tittle that the info if available elsewhere. He deliberately decided to enter into an area, representing himself as a physician. Copyright is at most a secondary issue with this. Quoted here: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/31/rorschach-test.html. And introductory psychology textbooks discuss the test but do not publish these exact blots nor specifics of interpretation of these specific blots.
 * In a discussion on this talk page (now in the archives) about expertise on the Rorschach, he said, "Actually I am an expert". Ward3001 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

-point us to this please. Unless he can show that he has taken at least courses in psychological assessment, psychometric theory and has had supervised experience with this instrument, I think he's got a problem. As I understand it, projective testing is a specialised area with specific training required. I don't know of med schools certifying emerg MDs in psychological assessment let alone projective testing. I think it is probably helpful if there are multiple submissions about this to the 2 colleges in Sask: Psychology and Medical. The rulings sought would be about mainly his professional conduct. I don't think they would touch the copyright issues, of which I am ill-informed. I do know medical regulatory issues and standards however quite well.-


 * I just slugged through the regular archive searthing for an expert The closest thing I found was "And I am an expert on assessment." from Ward3001 in Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_2. There was a lot of stuff on that page by DIEGO say he was not an expert.  "I'm an expert on the Rorschach' by Ward3001 again Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_3 followed by a lot of sarcastic stuff from Dreamguy about being a better expert then the experts.  Now going on to the sub archives.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment is in Talk:Rorschach test/images/2009-06 Arguments Pro. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I have not personally contributed here, but a visiting person using my computer without my knowledge has. My username may show up in some of these comments in this section. The edits by this person appear to be in good faith to the talk page by this retired health care admin person. I have disallowed further use. Just putting this in for clarity if required. It may be that some or all of these show up with an IP address. --Fremte (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

'''All of the pictures of the Inkblot Cards need to be removed. Posting them contaminates this tool, The Rorschach Test. Posting the popular responses further contaminates this test.''' It is a simple case of scuppering a professional clinical tool and needs to be stopped. In reality, the likelihood that prospective test takers would have studied the cards and memorized the popular responses is low. And if someone does (I have had this happen to me as a Clinical Psychologist once in over 25 years of work), you as the clinician can tell something's up, but it makes it that much harder to help the person, because the data they are giving you is false. The academic controversies around the test are a 'red herring' -- captivating, but not the point, a potent distraction. There is academic controversy around many psychological, as well as medical tests and treatments'. For example, Oncologists -- cancer doctors -- have heated debate about when to administer various aspects of treatment. Neuroanatomists have decades-long, passionate 'fights' with their colleagues about exactly where one structure ends and another begins. And so on. Does that mean we don't believe in the brain? In chemo-therapy? It would seem that it is only because of the provacative nature of the stimuli of this test, that all of this controversy has occurred and that the 10 blots have been allowed to remain posted this long. If Dr James Heilman had posted the answers to IQ tests, or to tests for risk of violence, wouldn't the good people at Wikipedia have removed them immediately? Edith Meyers (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Signed, Edith Meyers (I have a PhD in Neuroscience and Clinical Psychology, am a Chartered Psychologist and Chartered Scientist in the UK.) text''

I think 'shutting the door after the horse has bolted' applies in this case (and seems to have been so for some time).

Responses to the images will be 'to some extent' determined by the socio-cultural environment/weltanschaung of the person taking the test - and responses will change over time for a variety of reasons. Having the images generally available means that they form part of the environment.

If the concept can be explained to them it would be possible to use the 'colour blindness circles tests' and the Snellen Charts with prehistoric humans, apes, and aliens etc (asking them to draw what they see, if more appropriate than naming the images) and get meaningful comparative data in the process. : this cannot be done wtih the inkblot tests. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like much of the media has published the blots as well. The personal threats are noted.  I think a few people are taking this a little too seriously.  To clarify for Ward3001 well I claimed to be an expert I never claimed to be an expert of the Rorschach.  You are misinterpreting what I wrote.


 * You claimed to be an expert on psychology. Here is the full exchange :
 * As you say, we live in an evidence based world. The APA, the representative body of psychologists (scientists) makes decisions based on evidence. Ethical matters deal with preventing harm to the public, which is why it is considered unethical to compromise tests.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So what is this based on? BTW expert opinion is ranked as the lowest form of evidence.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that prior exposure to tests impacts the result of those tests. Do you propose that it doesn't? Since what you propose goes against common sense and against expert opinion, it would seem that the burdon of proof is on you to prove otherwise. As for your opinion about expert opinion, expert opinion is still evidence, whether you feel it is "lowest form" or not. Nonexpert opinion, such as yours, doesn't trump expert opinion when the two contradict each other.Faustian (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you claimed expertise in a field in which you have no expertise. And now you are being dishonest about it.Faustian (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of these images is based on a desire to create a comprehensive encyclopedia, nothing further. May I remind everyone that that is what we are here to do, we are here to create an encylopedia.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you suggest the people at Encarta or Britannica aren't there to create an encyclopedia? Neither of those uses the real inkblots or gives answers.Faustian (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What value is there in creating a false dilemma? Resolute 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia has an objective of creating a comprehensive source of information, psychologists also have an objective of maintaining the integrity of psychological tests. While Rorschach tests are available elsewhere, posting them on a site as popular as Wikipedia would expose significantly more people to them. To keep results of these tests accurate, the tests and their results should not be displayed in whole on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.169.109 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To James: First of all, I don't see any personal threats. Personal threats would include threat of harm. I see discussion of professional ethics and conduct, and discussion of a public figure who voluntarily identified himself by name in a newspaper read worldwide. Secondly, the discussion in which you said "Actually I am an expert" was in a discussion of expertise in the Rorschach. You clearly claimed to be an expert in the Rorschach. I even challenged you soon after you made the comment, but you would not explain. You may wish to retract that statement now (which is your right), but at the time it was quite clear that you were referring to expertise in the Rorschach. Ward3001 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither the images nor associations are that secret, they are reproduced in various places (books, online, etc.). To say that Wikipedia should censor them out is absurd. Somebody who reads it here by accident is not likely to remember it for the future, and somebody who wanted to learn about them in the first place would have little problem finding all the info anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is James Heilman claiming to be an expert:


 * Actually I am an expert. And no the burden of proof lies with those who claim harm.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And as an "expert" voicing his opinion on this test in a newspaper:. "Heilman said he has come under a lot of criticism, but noted the medical community is split quite dramatically over this test. "There are some who believe that this test is useless and there are some who believe this test is a godsend. So if you look at the published literature in the field of psychology, there are recent papers saying giving the test is dangerous and others saying the test isn't used frequently enough," he said. "So if the community of psychologists aren't sure about how useful this test is and it is being applied to the society at large, I think it is very important that we, as a society, discuss the merits of this test." (because naturally scietific controversies can best be resolved by "general society" with no idea of the test)

Here is the "expert" offering his opinions:

Now, if a psychologist were to contaminate next year's batch of flu vaccine and claim as an "expert" that it might not work anyways, he would lose his license. Here Dr. James Heilman has contaminated a widely used psychological test, claiming "expertise" and stating that in his (expert) opinion it isn't a big deal. Indeed he accuses the others of being unethical by opposing what he has done. I wonder how seriously his Medical College take the Hippocratic Oath, in particular " "Above all, do no harm".Faustian (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Discussing this test does not do it harm. Most people who come here I would guess are actually health care providers and others in related feilds not those the test will be used up. Discussing it may actually do the test some good. We discuss the rest of health care honestly and I see no reason why this test is anything special. So no I do not see anything unethical with this page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Apparently the "expert" can't tell the difference between the test items/ansers and an honest discussion about the test)
 * The "expert" Heilman accusing psychologists of not following their own ethics code by trying to limit the images : "The behavior of Faustian and Ward fall significantly below that recommended by the code of ethics they claim to support / follow. What they are attempting to do is unethical as per this code.--Doc James (talk contribs · email) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the "Expert sign of section" he claimed: No evidence of harm therefore we do not need to worry about ethics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here he is smiling about his notoriety : Looks like the discussion is becoming infamously. They might just start showing the ten inkblots on the evening news yet if we all keep this up. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking over the "Actually I am an expert." comment Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Pro it is unclear as to what Doc James is claiming expertise in. You could even say in context it looks like he was being sarcastic.  Ward3001's position IMHO is like taking George Brown Goode's statement of the Smithsonian being one giant Museum of Anthropology at face value without understanding how Goode defined "Anthropology".
 * Another factor is Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." This statement (or the entire article) has has already been picked up by Medical News Today, Science Daily, EurekAlert! (run by the AAAS}, lab spaces, physorg.com, e! sciencenews.com, sciencecodex.com, Shrink rap Tri-City Psychology Services, and an increasing numbed of other sites as well as several blogs (which don't count as far as WP:RS goes).   A search through the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archive and throwing out the chaff shows that Newsweek is regarded as [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36 "a highly reliable news magazine"] so the Newsweek article met WP:RS requirements despite Ward3001's efforts to blow it off as simply being among "popular magazines".  Now we find that the statement is being made through the news section of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt about James's claim of expertise in the Rorschach, either in or out of context. The issue being discussed was expertise in the Rorschach, James wrote "I am an expert", I challenged him on it, and he did not clarify. Trying to refactor this in hindsight does not change what is in the archives. Ward3001 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing clear in that exchange. Doc James could be making a claim being an expert in science.  You have not dealt with the Isanski's article either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, somehow you manage to miss the relevant information almost every time you post. James' comment was clearly in the context of discussing expertise on the Rorschach. James has only acknowledged that he is not a Rorschach expert by inference at most, never directly; when challenged and asked to explain what he meant in the comment, he has never directly stated that he meant anything other than expertise in the Rorschach. If something looks like a rat, acts like a rat, and smells like a rat, it takes very little insight to know that it's a rat [Disclaimer: Not meant to say that anyone is a rat; just a figure of speech]. None of this is to say that James now claims expertise in the Rorschach, but at the time the comment was made he never denied that is what he meant even though challenged several times.
 * Isanski? First of all, it's not a journal article. It's a brief news release. But most importantly, there is nothing to respond to. All Isanski does is briefly regurgitate Wood et al., and Wood et al. clearly has been shown to be in the minority among those knowledgeable about personality assessment, as well as unscientific and simply wrong in most of their conclusions. Read the talk page. Read the archives. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on an editors personal ethics is not relevant to improving the article. Trying to scare him away with veiled threats is completely unacceptable. Please stop that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point somewhat Apoc. The discussion is about his professional ethics (i.e., false claims of expertise). And when an editor publicly identifies himself by name to the world so that it is apparent to anyone (not just editors here) what he has misrepresented here, that becomes relevant to this discussion. We're not just talking about a Wikipedia editor; we talking about a public figure. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.medpedia.com/ uses real names and qualifications to increase transparency. Wikipedia however does not partly because of fear of personal attacks from less.  I beleive in greater transparency however do understand the fears of many in letting there identity be known.  Ward I am a physician which makes me a medical expert.  Maybe we should bring this discussion to WP:ANI or arbitation or something.


 * There are complaints that psychologists are unable to improve this page. At this point it is difficult for anyone to make improvements.  Partly due to the anymosity here and the fact that the page is block to all but admins. -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * James, most of us know you are a physician, and undoubtedly you have medical expertise. Some of us also know that a physician is not a psychologist, and that (with the exception of psychiatrists), most physicians have no expertise (nor claim it) in psychological testing. So the very critical question that you need to answer without hedging or circumlocution is: Do you claim to be an expert on the Rorschach? And do you claim to be an expert on any psychological test? In the past you have failed to respond to such inquiries. You might be able to bring this issue to a close if you'll be straightforward in your answer. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether James is a public figure or not, discussions on his personal ethics are still not relevant to this article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And Apoc, for the second time, this is about professional ethics, not personal ethics. And a false claim of expertise is relevant. Ward3001 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me put it simply. The addition of these images has nothing to do with an expertise in psychology or any other feild for that matter.  It has to do with consensus of wikipedians and the fact that these images are encylopedic.  Certain editors not liking the decision of the majority is not going to change matters.


 * Also I would appreciate you give it a rest regarding who has what qualifications here. As mentioned on your talk page  it does not matter who is an expert in what.  It matters that the material added to the main space is verifiable.  And yes the images are truely the Rorschach images or do you have a ref that claims otherwise.


 * This page is about the Rorschach it is not about the ethics of those editing. Move this someplace else.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * James, you are refusing to give a direct yes or no to the question of whether you claim to be an expert in the Rorschach. And why is that? Is it because you don't want to dispel your false claims of expertise, or that you don't want to admit that you made misleading claims? And I didn't ask the question in terms of the images. Your answer is quite relevant. You said, "Actually I am an expert". If you are claiming to be an expert in the Rorschach, you then have tried to use that claimed expertise to sway opinions here. Let me try to give you an analogy. I am a psychologist. I know more about neuropsychology than the average person, and I have administered some neuropsychological tests within the limits of my training and background. But I do not claim to be an expert on neuropsychology. If someone needs a neuropsychologist, I refer them elsewhere. So I can give a clear, unequivocal "no" if I am asked, "Are you an expert in neuropsychology?" Since you have said "Actually I am an expert", some here have chosen to interpret that as an expert in the Rorschach, and you have not denied that. Can you give a clear and unequivocal yes or no to the question: Do you claim to be an expert on the Rorschach? If you continue to avoid answering the question directly, we have no choice but to conclude that you do not wish to clarify this matter, making your claim "Actually I am an expert" misleading. You can settle it easily with a yes or a no. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ward this is irrelevant.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. You do not wish to dispel misleading claims of expertise. You wish to perpetuate the false impressions. That speaks volumes. We can all now without any hesitation say, James has no expertise in the Rorschach. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent I am glad that we have this settled. Now let move on.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

 * Hello, I'm completely new to this dabate. Well, that's not quite true (I was up till 3am last night reading all the archives... I know - sad, sad sad!). Sometimes another voice in a debate that has gone on for years (yes, I was very surprised to see how tenaciously the same arguments have clung to their respective rocks), can help... or not - I don't know, anyway:

-There's a lot of truth in the point that 'its all out there anyway' (perhaps Psychology authorities need to think what might be next to be 'outed', and try to close that stable door)

-"to catalogue the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world". Seems a good and noble cause. But there are exceptions. There was a case recently where a senior Policeman in the UK carried a document about an anti-terror operation in a see through folder into No. 10 Downing Street. Naturally enough he got in big trouble. If I recall correctly the Media all showed the crucial page, but with the details blurred. Perhaps Wikipedia could take a similar line... the Psychologists professional bodies have erred in not protecting what they should have according to thier own code - to expose this is fine, but to reveal actual details is perhaps not... (analogy not great, because the Police operation details were not already available as in the Rorschach case)

-Standardised Tests (I was introduced to one as part of an Occupational Therapy training) DO take a lot of research over a long time. To potentially accelerate the invalidation of one, just for the sake of "all information must be out there", seems a tad vandalistic to me.

-Surely Psychologists don't rely on the Rorschach as a major tool for diagnosis (someone can correct me here, but there must have been great strides made with other tools/techniques since 1927)

-Unfortunately it seems (sorry, its in the archives somewhere) that courts have greatly increased their use (and reliance?) on the Rorschach in recent years. That's worrying, and WP doesn't help if the tests really are spoiled by prior exposure...

-Surely its well documented that prior exposure to a given stimulus does affect outcomes. As a simple example, that famous psychology text book image of the candlestick/two faces, can never be seen as just one or the other after realisation/explanation.

There we are, I'm sure the arguments will continue but I hope that the Psychology profession is, as we speak, creating alternate, reliable, safeguarded tools.--Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting way of framing giving out the answers and the test items to a test. Is doing so for medical licensing exams, the SAT, etc. also comparable in your opinion? Does doing so indicate a belif that "information should be freely available and is attempting to catalog the breadth and depth of human knowledge to offer it free to the world at large." Does opposing doing this constittue "restrict access to this information on the bases of theoretical harm." Is wikipedia a site for leaking tests if you can get away with it (copyright, etc.) or an encyclopedia? Do the two have to be the sasme thingFaustian (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

hmm... having trouble with line breaks, paras, etc.. didn't mean to hide my signature... I'll try here... --Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess wikipedia is already a site for leaking things if they can be, by virtue of the fact that anyone can post anything at least for a while. Its just in the nature of it. Guidelines are great, but an open access system is bound to used (and abused). On another point: Its not really a 'leak' if its already freely available. The professionals view seems to be that everyone should respect ethical considerations, however in reality that's not going to happen.Jabberwock359 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comments, Jabberwock. I'll just respond to part of what you wrote. No psychological test actually makes a diagnosis. As you suggest, a test is a tool used by the diagnostician. Psychologists have many such tools available, including a variety of tests. But they don't all do the same thing. The Rorschach is a major tool used by psychologists (but not the only one), and the casual, flippant attitude that many have shown here about damaging its validity, especially someone who claims to be a healer (and falsely claims to be an expert), is an ethical tragedy. Ward3001 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, an ethical tragedy, but is the tragedy the making of casual flippant attitudes (which you can expect to get on WP), or made by the failure of people who recognised that its validity was vulnerable but did not put adequate safeguards in place? Jabberwock359 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree for the most part, Jabberwock. But one of your points is unclear. What "safeguards" could have been put in place that weren't. It was impossible to legally extend the copyright on the images. The current test took 90 years of research to get to its current status. Any attempt to develop a new test would take decades of research, millions of dollars, and with no guarantee that it would have equivalent usefulness. One possible safeguard would have been more stringent control of the behavior of physicians or other health professionals by their respective governing bodies to avoid wreckless behavior, but that's beyond the control of psychologists. What other safeguards could have been put in place? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, they therefore knew that the copyright would expire and did nothing to prepare for that situation. If you're saying (as it seems) that "there's nothing they could do", then the test should have been recognised as having a limited lifespan and treated accordingly. (I do wonder how the test was made available to non-Psychology professionals in the first place.)

Also, why - given that they could see it's limited life-span and the time needed to create a new one - did they not start making that new one earlier?Jabberwock359 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To some extent, you're engaging in 20-20 hindsight, which can be very misleading. First, expiration of the copyright and public exposure of the images was not a serious issue until the explosion of the internet and proliferation of websites. In relative terms, that happened quickly (relative to exposure the old fashioned way, which was an extremely slow process relative to the internet). Secondly, what could psychologists have done in the few years it took to realize that the internet posed a problem regarding exposure? As I've said, development of the Rorschach to its current level of usefulness took about nine decades. Development of a new test would take decades, cost lots of money, and all without any guarantee that a replacement test would be one-tenth as good. Some tests are much more easily revised. The MMPI underwent a major revision. That took some years, but it's a paper-pencil test with a finite number of questions and responses. The MMPI developers were able to blend old items with new items, allowing for some continued reliance on older research. Additionally, the revised test could then be copyrighted, essentially providing additional decades of protection. Not so with a test like the Rorschach. Some years ago, a psychologist named Holtzman tried to develop a different inkblot test. For clinical purposes it essentially is useless. So in the few years since websites have begun posting the images, what do you suggest could have been done? Ward3001 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is a form of 20-20 hindsight. But that's my point - if it was inevitable that the internet would proliferate out of copright stuff, and that's only been plain for a 'few years' (although I think many years would be nearer the mark) - then those 'few years' could have been used profitably by the Psychology authorities to warn Courts etc. that the test would shortly become invalid. Instead, one imagines the professionals whispering to each other: 'hush don't say a word about it and maybe we can carry on using it for a little longer before the proverbial hits the fan'. So its a bit disingenuous to blame the latest publicists - a bit like shooting the messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwock359 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This 20-20 hindsight defense is laughable. Remember when Rorschach first published the test the US copyright would have had to be renewed in 28 years to keep the US copyright and with that the thing would run out in 1977.  We are asked to believe that a bunch of professionals who look after our mental health suddenly went bag full of hammers dumb regarding the issue of keeping what would eventually go public domain (the images themselves) under control. The signs were all there: while Verne's 1863 internet was unknown Licklider in 1960 did predict a limited version of the internet.  This Sword of Damocles has hanging by a thread and only as it falls does anyone pay attention?!?  Come on the professional couldn't have been that clueless.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your expectations that someone can predict the future is more than laughable. It's very similar to the delusional ideation that I've often seen in people who are psychotic. Next I suppose you'll be saying that psychologists are sending radio signals to your brain to try to force you to say you agree with them. Bruce, it's easy to look back and say psychologists should have been able to predict the future with complete accuracy, but I think it's a safe bet that your predictions about major world events over the next 10 or 20 years will fall flat on their face. For the sake of posterity, let's create an example: Who do you predict will be the President of the United States on January 21, 2017, just 8 years from now? Ward3001 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about predicting specific future events as specific times but broad general trends.  James Burke's 1978 Connections pegged the computer as one of the major triggers of change and the last episode of 1985 The Day the Universe Changed took that prediction one critical step forward.  Clifford Stoll's 1990 gave us a brief glimpse into that world in The Cuckoo's Egg and the 1992 series The Machine That Changed the World with its "The World At Your Fingertips" episode.  Eisenberg, John M (2001) "Can You Keep a Secret?" Journal General Internal Medicne 16(2): 132–134 touched on part of the problem and Steiner, Victoria (2002) "MedReach: building an Area Health Education Center medical information outreach system for Northwest Ohio" Journal Medical Library Assocociation; 90(3): 317–322.  The signposts were clearly there to anyone who payed attention to them.


 * Trying to strawman my point is not going to work (A&E's Future that never happened is quite clear on why exact predictions of the future don't work). The fact is that the Rorschach test blots were already out in print media to the general public in 1975 and it was clear by 1992 that eventually the internet was going to get a hold of them and from there to place on it where any Tom, Dick, and Harry could see them.  It was not a question of if it was going to happen but when.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, makes no sense Bruce; it's more 20-20 hindsight by you. To say that psychologists should have known that the web would have existed in the 1980s (based on a book by Jules Verne???), and should have known its specific capabilities (such as availability of almost any image) is more nonsense. To expect psychologists to do that is more than a "general trend"; it's equivalent to asking you to predict the President of the U.S. in 2013. After all, there are only two major political parties; it's almost a sure thing that he/she will be from one or the other, so then you simply follow the "general trends" currently in existence, project them only 8 short years to narrow down the field in each party, and voila!! You have the next President's name. As simple as predicting everything about the web 10 or 20 years in advance. And no, it was not clear by 1992 that the internet was going to do anything with the images. The web was only three years old then. Most people did not have computers. Even fewer were connected to the internet, and the ones that were had to wait 20 or 30 minutes to download a single image. 20-20 hindsight, Bruce. That's the straw man. I really think if you give it some thought you can come up with some better arguments about the images than blaming psychologists for not predicting the future 10 or 20 years in advance. You give psychologists too much credit, Bruce. Sometimes we can make some fairly good probability estimates about whether someone might end up with a particular range of diagnoses in a couple of years, but seriously, we're not any better than you are at predicting major world events 10 years from now. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. The Rorschach blots went public domain in Switzerland in 1955 and the US copyright would have only bought a 22 year period of breathing room.  That the Rorschach blots would one day become public domain and therefore not as controllable was unavoidable.  The warning signs were all there and trying to say this is all 20-20 hindsight is like bemoaning you should have filled up at that last gas station despite all the indication there wouldn't be another one for another 100 miles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Predicting 8 years makes more sense than predicting 22 years. So, give us the name of the next U.S. President, and we'll wait 8 years and see if you're any better at predicting the future than psychologists. Ward3001 (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Warn the courts? What would that accomplish? The courts can't come up with a new test. Most people in the court system know even less than the average person who reads this talk page about what to do about these issues. That does nothing to avoid any problems created for the test. The most that would have accomplished would have been to evoke a response of "What do you want us to do about it?" Further, warning the courts does nothing for the vast majority of cases in which the Rorschach has been useful: clinical, not forensic, uses. And your comment of professionals "whispering to each other" is described perfectly in one word you used: imagine. That's your imagination. You portray psychologists as sneaky whisperers who live under a rock and don't know what's going on in the world. I'm one of those professionals, and I'm well connected to many other of those professionals. There was no whispering. There was a quick realization that nothing could be done (except what has been done). And sorry, but I strongly disagree that the proliferation of websites occurred over many years; remember I'm talking about relative time. What you say is a bit like saying that the current economic crisis should have been anticipated by the average investor 10 years ago. The web didn't even exist 20 years ago, and it didn't catch on instantly. Again, you're using 20-20 hindsight. I don't know how old you were in 1989, but most of the concepts prevalent in the web were not imagined by many people back then. Lots of people didn't even own computers then. And the ones that were owned by the average person were incredibly slow. If you had asked someone around 1993 how long would it be before almost any image that exists will be available almost instantly to almost anyone in the world, the speculation probably would have been 30 or 40 years or more. In relative terms (considering the life of the Rorschach is about 90 years), the explosion of websites was rather sudden. I'm afraid your 20-20 hindsight has given you a very distorted perspective of the way things actually were over the last decade or so. There essentially was nothing psychologists could have done to avoid these problems that they did not actually do. Some people here and on other websites have taken lots of shots at the mental health system, but no, psychologists are not shooting the messenger. Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Psychologists have known virtually forever that the copyright was going to expire. Just assuming that, even after the copyright expired, you would be able to keep the term materials convidential shows an incredible lack of insight. Be it the web or something else, it really didn't take rocket science to realize the probability of "leaking" would increase drastically with the test material going public domain.
 * As for one's "mistaken" imagination about psychologists "whispering" and conspiring... what should one think when the society selling Rorschach still insists on wrongly claiming copyright on something that's clearly not copyrighted anymore (I call that a "lie"), and psychological organizations here and there threaten to sue here and there (I call that "bullying")?
 * I guess these entities don't represent psychologists as a whole, but you have to understand why our "imagination" flies free. --LjL (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is absurd and shows your lack of insight. Read the comments above and below. With or without copyright, there was very little public exposue of the images prior to the proliferation of websites. And the publisher of the Rorschach test does not claim copyright; that is a lie and I challenge you to provide proof that Hogrefe and Huber (the publisher) claims copyright. They have a current trademark on "Rorschach test", but they do not claim copyright to the images. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between copyright and trademark. Ward3001 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Thank you for the unsubstantiated "absurd" "lack of insight" remark) If it is a lie, then it is a lie brought forward by a few entities, such as this article, the Italian Wikipedia (would you mind telling them it's not the case? they won't believe me), and, apparently, yourself. Sorry if i was swayed by this information. --LjL (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your link to Techdirt and to my comment from two years ago do not say that Hogrefe and Huber (not me) claim to have a copyright. The Techdirt article says H&H may take legal action. Copyright and legal action are two different things. (I don't read Italian, so I'll be convinced only if a reputable person besides you does the translation). So you are mistaken in saying that the test publishers claim copyright. Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You usually take legal action about something, not nothing (unless you just want to scare people away, though fortunately courts don't like that), and that something can only be copyright. Anyway, I was showing the attitude of psychological groups, that go as far as threatening legally those who publish this public domain material. Another example, a cease-and-desist (and-apologize) letter from the Italian Psychological Association to an Italian newspaper that dared publish inkblots. All I'm trying to say here is that we probably don't like psychologists, and treat them as if they were some "secret society", because their representatives aren't doing anything to be liked, and act as if they were secret societies. --LjL (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So in addition to claiming expertise in the Rorschach, you now consider yourself an expert in the law?? I never cease to be amazed at your ability completely master, in a matter of minutes, fields that take others years to achieve. There could be a variety of legal actions that DO NOT involved copyright. One possibility: trademark infringement (that's not the same as copyright). And before you fly off the handle that H&H doesn't have a legal claim on the basis of trademark, let me hasten to add that whether they do or don't is irrelevant to your (again) absurd claim that the only legal action that could exist is copyright violation in the complete absence of anything to verify that. Please LjL, just restrict yourself to fancying yourself a psychologist, not a lawyer. Ward3001 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really am sick of your gratuitous mocking of me. To contradict what I said earlier, I'll state now that I really do wish you would just go away. Find a place where your twisting of other words, sarcasm, mocking etc is wanted. This is not it. --LjL (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was long ago sick of you mocking psychologists, mocking what psychologists have to offer on this talk page and in the article, mocking the Exner system, mocking any attempt by psycholoigsts to critique the article, mocking the publisher of the Rorschach test, mocking the consensus process, mocking fundamental logic instead of wild unfounded conclusions ... I could go on but I don't want to double the length of this page. But most importantly and on a positive note, thank you so much for clearly, unequivocally, and unsurprisingly confirming that psychologists indeed are not welcome on this talk page and that you are one of the chief "unwelcomers". Amazingly, LjL, it's possible for editors to disagree without one of them getting so defensive that communication becomes impossible. Look at the exchange between Jabberwock and me. Ward3001 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "psychologists"; you, as in thou. --LjL (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At least two other psychologists have expressed their belief that no psychologist is welcome here. In my case, you just took the extra step of yelling at me and attacking me personally because I challenged your expertise in the law. Ward3001 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ward, I really cannot fathom you of all people of accusing anyone of mocking the consensus process, you have twisted and distorted it so much in your attempts to force your point it is beyond belief. I have only seen LjL respect the consensus that has formed here. You need to stop attacking the people on this page. For all your criticism against LjL at least this user is willing to improve the article. You are confusing psychologists not being welcome here with you not being welcome here, you are becoming more and more disruptive to the discussions that occur here. Chillum  03:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor can I fathom you doing anything except agreeing with an editor with whom you have repeatedly mocked psychologists and constantly held up a "Psychologists not welcome here" sign (and by no means am I the only editor who feels this way). I have at times been disruptive in the heat of the moment; the difference between you and me is that you cannot see your disruption (which occurs quite regularly) or the disruption of any editor who agrees with you and/or disagrees with me. You no doubt will say a perfunctory "Oh I'll admit I've occasionally come close to stepping over the line" just to deny that you think your behavior here has been perfect, but that's not really seeing your frequent disruptions, denigration of other editors, and rejection of any discussion with anyone who disagrees with you. Chillum, you need to stop attacking the people on this page. And the psychologists here also have been willing to improve the article; the only thing holding up that process is complete rejection of any expression of opinions from psychologists by you and a few other editors here. Now, I suggest that you and I both end this particular discussion so that I nor you takes it to a level that is unnecessary. Let's see if you can do that. Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I welcome any scrutiny that comes towards my behavior, it has stood up in the past. I am about as welcome for your behavior to come under scrutiny. Chillum  03:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum, thanks for confirming my expectation that you simply cannot restrain yourself when an editor in conflict with you suggests that both you and he simply stop discussion here. Ward3001 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've taken offence because I said 'whispering', and I nearly took offence at being cast as someone with 'distorted 20-20 hindsight'. Perhaps I'll remind myself about the warnings at the top of the page about keeping things calm neutral and non personal.. perhaps you might too. That being said, we actually agree on a lot of things. I too think its a terrible shame that ignorance about a proven useful test has allowed it to be invalidated (if not already then quite soon). One needs to study or at least read a little to know about tests, research, what goes into verifying results etc., before dismissing them, which sadly some of the contributors on these pages have done. So I can quite believe that it took 90 years, essentially, to build the Rorschach up to its level of usefulness prior to the internet proliferation of the images. Far from thinking that Psychologists are 'sneaky people living in caves', I actually have a lot of respect for them, and have worked along side them in multi-disciplinary mental health teams. I guess my basic question to you is: what's the point in hammering away at the folks who have merely done what you acknowledge was inevitable? Are you hoping that somehow the consensus can reach the point of agreeing that the images should not be displayed? I fear that the contributors who think that 'all information should be freely available' may not see the point that there are special cases where that is not true. And if we persuade other Wikipedians, how will we keep a lid on all the other (and future) websites.I'm genuinely curious as to whether you think the test is saveable in its present form. Thanks for your replies, by the way. Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

apologies to the people who started this section about 'different philosophies'. I have created a big digression, and if anyone knows how to lift the exchange between Ward and me to another section, please go ahead. Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't take offense at the whispering comment. I was taken aback because it is so contrary to reality. And now, so is your comment "I can quite believe that it took 90 years ... to build the Rorschach up to its level of usefulness" contrary to reality. How long do you think it took? H. Rorschach developed the test in 1921. Much research has been added every year in the last 20 to 30 years, so that takes us to 2009 in the development to the current level. The images weren't proliferated on the internet until the last five years or so. You do the math. About 83 years; I was off by about 7 years. So whether you believe it or not, it's a fact.
 * And I do agree that we agree on a lot. As for the "hammering away", that's a completely different issue than blaming the psychologists for the problems. I and several other psychologists here have addressed that issue of why the images should not be on Wikipedia despite being elsewhere on the internet at great length on this talk page. I don't think it would be appropriate to suddenly quadruple the length of this talk page by repeating it all here. I'm not trying to avoid answering your question. But there are some excellent answers to that question throughout the archives if you wish to read them. There also are many differences of opinion on that issue, so it's very complex. My main purpose in getting into this extended discussion with you here was to dispel the quite inaccurate charges you have made that somehow psychologists could have prevented these problems. That seriously clouded the real issues here. Thanks for you comments. Ward3001 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strawman argument as the internet as we know it didn't really exist until 1999 but the Rorschach test images were available in book form as far back as 1975 some 34 years ago. Again this horse has been out a LONG time and gone of and had colts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You completely missed my point that the availability in book form was miniscule and not a serious problem compared to availability on the web. If it had been a serious problem before the web all of this arguing would have been occurring in books and journals, but there was none. 20-20 hindsight, Bruce. It's easy to look back and say psychologists should have been able to predict the future with complete accuracy, but I think it's a safe bet that your predictions about major world events over the next 10 or 20 years will fall flat on their face. For the sake of posterity, let's create an example: Who do you predict will be the President of the United States on January 21, 2017, 8 years from now? Ward3001 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

err... I was agreeing with you that it took 90 years. I think you misread "I can quite believe" and saw "I can't quite believe" anyway, no harm done. Good luck with the consensus changing! (its going to be like painting the Forth Bridge). Jabberwock359 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. No harm. Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with DocJames assessment of the situation. I think there are not two, but three philosophies or points of view (POV) present on this page.  The first POV doesn't accept the evidence from a national health organization with 150,000 members that we are harming the test.  The second POV accepts the evidence from the national health organization with 150,000 members, but thinks that that our policy of WP:NOTCENSORED trumps it.  And the third POV, my POV, looks at the first two and says a) I can't dismiss the evidence, not without substituting my own opinion for that of a national health organization, b) I am responsible for the consequences of my actions, even if those actions are in accordance with group policy, and c) group policy can and should be changed (or ignored) if by doing so, the purpose of an encyclopedia can be better served. (i.e. preserving knowledge by not vandalizing the subjects of our articles.)  The first POV is clearly not neutral because it substitutes its own opinion for that of a reliable source.  The second POV believes that information has intrinsic value above that of any single individual, and longs to be free and is better off disclosed - a fine ethic unless otherwise shown to be unethical.  The third, of course, has no flaws in its composition whatsoever, and will probably continue to be voiced here, if not by me, then by someone else.    Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with DocJames assessment of the situation. I think the situation is more complex. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That you for informing us that, contrary to others', your opinion has "no flaws whatsoever", now it's all so much clearer... --LjL (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, DD's argument also works against him. Because, frankly, the majority believes the encyclopedia would be damaged to remove the pictures.  So yes, it is being voiced by many people, on all sides.  The problem, DD, is that your opinion of what constitutes vandalism is not supported, not even in the context you wrapped it around. Resolute 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are asking (as is our right) to see the studies that prove that seeing this test beforehand hurts it. We still wait for those studies to be produced.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be your right to ask, Bruce and fellows, but you are asking for evidence which, I think, would require unethical procedures to produce it. I wonder would such a consideration concern you at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been addressed numerous times; you just haven't bothered to read the archives. But first, let me give you a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. I want you to give me a conclusive, well conducted study that exposing someone to the vacuum of outer space will kill them. What's that?? No peer-reviewed journal articles in which someone has been purposefully placed in outer space without a protective suit? So your next step to support the killer vacuum argument is to make an inference based on available data. You have evidence that a vacuum kills life, even though you've never purposefully placed someone in an unprotected vacuum in outer space. That's not direct proof, but it's a very good inference. Now, here's the point that has been presented over and over and over on this talk page but that you apparently have not read. You will never see a study in which someone is purposefully placed in a harmful situation to link its relationship to the Rorschach. That's because it can't be done, legally or ethically (Maybe you would do that, but psychologists wouldn't). So, just as in the vacuum example, we use reasonable inferences. I and others have presented peer reviewed studies that illustrate that the Rorschach can identify suicidal patients with a higher degree of accuracy than any other test or a clinician's speculative guesswork (It's in the archives, so before demanding the evidence here, read the archives). I hope you will agree that someone who is suicidal has a potential for harm. We have also presented evidence that prior viewing of the images can alter one's responses on the test and thus create a likelihood that suicidality might be missed because of test invalidity. Just as it does not take a huge leap in logic to know that the harmful effects of a vacuum can kill a human even though it's never been tried in outer space, so it is more than apparent that if prior viewing of a Rorschach image can alter the test's ability to detect suicidality and then if suicide actually occurs, there is harm linked to viewing the image. It's indirect evidence, but it's there, just as the vacuum in outer space example is indirect. You may be eagerly rubbing your hands, shouting that the argument is far-fetched. You may consider it far-fetched unless it's your child, or your spouse, or your sibling who is the suicide victim. Then it's a tragic reality for you, not an intellectual debate. For you to demand that we conduct research in which we purposefully expose someone to harm for the purpose of proving something about the Rorschach is very unreasonable, not to mention very unethical. The evidence is there; you just either don't know about it or ask that more, impossible evidence should be produced. Asking for impossible evidence so that you can then claim there is no evidence is a clever debating tactic, but I can't say that you're the first editor here to try it, or to have it rebutted. Ward3001 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a frequent technique used by the pharmaceutical industry. You conduct one study get a questionable result claim it is very positive and than that it is unethical to conduct further studies as your treatment is so beneficial.  It means you do not have to expose your treatment to further analysis that might not come out how you expected.  This excuse was used for SSRI's after which a meta analysis of the unpublished and published literature show that SSRI's have no effect in mild / mod / severe depression.  See publication bias and depression.  Was also used WRT stimulants and ADHD even though the follow up of the largest stimulant study (MTA) showed no real difference between the treatment arms after 3 years.


 * Now that many million have seen these images this last week it should be easy to do this study. Take a group who have seen the pictures and a group who has not and look at the accuracy using double blinded psychologist to administer the test.  Seem straight forwards to me.  Harm should be easy to prove without psychologists required to do any more harm.
 * Harm to the test or harm to the patient? The effects of prior exposure have already been shown to influence the test (it's in the archives; don't ask me to dig it up). (And do you really think the exposure has to be done on Wikipedia??? GIVE ME A BREAK!) If you mean harm to the patient, then no; your suggestion is meaningless because we can't inflict harm. Ward3001 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So Bruce has a very valid point show me the evidence-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need glasses, James. :) Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, could someone "show me the evidence" that leaking answers to medical licensing exams is harmful to the public? Have any studies been done specifically proving that this is the case?Faustian (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Faustian bring that to the page on medical exams.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's quite relevant here. It's essentially the same question, just different examples. In both cases there is a request for evidence of harm by exposure of test items. It's the process that is at issue, not the specific test. Now, if the reason you want it on another talk page is that it's a demand for impossible evidence, then please let us know and we can explain why we can't harm someone to study the Rorschach. Ward3001 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally irrelevant as there are online e-book study guides for medical fields] and [] amazon.com readily available. All who make this "exposure of test items" claim is show just how out of touch with what is going out there in the world they are.  This is ignoring the fact that these tests are objective while the Rorschach test is far more subjective and the blot themselves are only a very small part of the test.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello ... Bruce ... do you know the difference between a study guide and a test? You link to study guides. When someone buys a study guide, he does not get the questions for the actual test. The question was for evidence of leaking answers to the medical licensing exams, not the medical licensing study guide. Some here are demanding evidence about the Rorschach test, not the evidence for the Rorschach study guide. Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Study guides are made for entirely different types of tests. Tests that are administered to ensure knowledge/competence in a subject; the taker of the test will study so they have a better chance of "passing".  The concept of a psychological test such as Rorschach is rather different; for one thing you don't "fail" or "pass" a Rorscach test,  so there is no notion of studying.  The subject generally won't know in advance that they will be administered the test, and there's no cause for them to study, so probably no study guides exist....  --Mysidia (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are quite right Mysidia, when you say there are no right and wrong answers in the Rorschach, and that it is not like tests of knowledge or competence in a subject. But the basis of the Rorschach seems to be that the subject's responses are the first that come to mind, are not consciously considered over a long time and are not on's which are practiced beforehand. I would suggest that it is the scope that image pre-exposure has to compromising this aspect that is the bone on contention here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right Martinevans. And I'll add that this issue of study guides is what is completely irrelevant here. The issue, as posed in the requests for evidence of damage from revealing test items and answers, is that the demand for evidence of a direct, cause-effect relationship of revealing such information on damage to the public is a demand for impossible evidence, because in both cases no one can ethically or legally carry out such a study. Some here have demanded such evidence for the Rorschach, but when the tables are turned and there is a request for such evidence for medical exams, the responses is ... no response. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Method
Typo? The tester and testee typically sit next to each other at a table, with the testee slightly behind the testee. I guess the tester sits slightly behind the testee, but can somebody with some actual knowledge of this test please confirm? ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't want to be excessively critical of other people simply trying to improve the article here, but it's funny that all my edits get bashed (without explaining what exactly is wrong with them) even though I go to great lengths to source every single statement in them, while the psychologists and friends, since they're "the experts", feel they can just add unsourced content and expect people to believe it to be true... --LjL (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Availability

 * 1) Even if# the images are totally blocked on WP, they have been available on WP and elsewhere for 'some time' now, and the controversy has probably alerted many curious people to their availablity. The horse has left the stable (because the cat is out of the bag?) and #whatever# healthcare people now do or say they will have to assume some familiarity with the images. As in other cases there is a boomerang effect - complaining loudly about the publication of the images ensures greater publicity.


 * 1) However# what seems to be the key point is the 'interpretation of responses to the images' - how Broadmoor patients' responses differ from the person on the street or 'the average genius/sports star/captain of industry' etc. So long as #this# information is safe, how does publication of the images affect interpretation?

Can some of this discussion be archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we are not just concerned about the images themselves. We are also concerned about the discussion of how the tests are scored and interpreted.  I think we can write a good and informative article that will do justice both to the public's desire to know about these things and to the profession's need to keep them secure.  We cannot do that, however, in the current climate, where the educated opinions of psychology professionals are not welcome.  Nor can we do it in a climate where self-appointed amateurs are  pushing their personal POV that psychological tests are pseudoscience and attempting to use WP not just to inform the public, but also to destroy the usefulness of the tests and to control the actions of professionals whose work serves an important public good.  Mirafra (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be 'one of the usual circular arguments': the professionals wish to keep some information opaque so the systems work properly (much as the police may hold back some information on particular cases to identify useful contributors from (colloquially) attention seekers and other hinderances); those who observe the situation wish to be better informed and others go in for creative conspiracy theory generation. Unlike the colour-blindness tests there seems to be a high degree of subjectivity in the analysis, and probably 'most of us' will have different associations for some of the images which reflect 'harmless quirks and particular tastes' - eg seeing a wolf on Plate 1 without any 'possible flags of problems in other areas'

Given the date of the original images, the general knowledge of some of them, the length of time since the 1969 analysis, and other changes - eg Internet, Wikipedia, Second Life - it is perhaps time for a reconsidering. The intent should be to satisfy general curiosity (how are the images used etcd that 'to the casual observer' there seems to be a high degree of subjectivity, perhaps it is time for a reconsidering (the impact of eg the and other means of exploring what we might wish to be).

When the kerfuffle dies down there should be a reworking of the article covering the key areas of historical development and how the tests are used.

There are always arguments about the spread of knowledge to laypeople - and eg some of the 'information readily available on ganfyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a reasonable summation of the problem. I'd like to clarify that the current usage of the test is actually much less subjective than most people think it is (it is substantially a neuropsychological test, with the projective aspects taking a supplementary role, and even those are interpreted in light of population norms rather than being purely the whim of the evaluator), and that the normal variation within the population about what people see and why they see it is absolutely taken into consideration in the interpretive system.  Mirafra (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra: Your recent posts have summarized the discussion beautifully. I would like to get away from the specifics of the issue of the plates themselves and expand upon a couple of general issues. I think some of the posters don't fully appreciate the reasons behind keeping certain test materials secure. If the tests function better that way, they allow for a more accurate diagnosis and/or personality description. To use a couple of analogies: when researchers use double-blind studies in order to test the effectiveness of drugs or other treatments, informing the subjects of which condition they were in might fulfill someone's version of "freedom of information," but it would make it impossible to accurately test the effectiveness of the drug or treatment. The reference to the eye chart is another example. There is nothing gained by having that available on the internet, but there is an increase in danger to the public in that visually-impaired individuals might be given driver's licenses. The chart could have just as easily been posted with the letters in a scrambled order. The same pedagogical function would have been served without danger. One other point that I want to make. There seems to be a general hostility to psychology and mental health in the tenor of some posts. These have the subtext of "if they are so worried about their precious tests, let them make new ones. If they don't, it's their problem." If Wikipedia were to post something that had the potential of invalidating CT-scans or MRI's (thus making the diagnosis of cancer more difficult), I doubt the attitude would be: "if radiologists can't come up with another kind of test, that's their problem." Somehow, the accurate diagnosis of psychiatric disorders is viewed as less important to the public. Curious.SPAdoc (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem, SPAdoc, is that based on the very design of the Rorschach test (as presented by Wood in "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading") there are going to be problems with double blind. For example, if someone looking at Plate 6 says "I see a Klingon battle ship" the psychologist now knowns he has a Star Trek fan or perhaps fullblown Treker/Trekie on his hands.  Someone seeing Plate 3 as "two gnomes riding striders" has told the psychologist they play a lot of WOW.  I grew up on a lot of PBS and so see Plate 7 as coral or a vase while Plate 9 reminds me of an oil slick that I saw under my father's car years ago. Then what do do when you have a cultural shift like the internet which as we know it is not even 10 years old?

What is going to happen when somebody says Plate 5 is the headdress of some anime character the psychologist odds are has never even heard of? Better yet how do plates 8 through 10 work with color blind people?


 * One the most troubling thing in all this is the effort psychologists have put into this and their apparent lack of effort regarding public hysteria around Satanism and Dungeons & Dragons in the 1980s to the point the Center for the Treatment of Ritualistic Deviance out of Hartgrove Hospital in Chicago was set up to address the problems of the "crazy" Satanists and Dungeon & Dragons players despite Armando, Simón, (1987) "Emotional Stability Pertaining to the Game of Dungeons & Dragons." Psychology in the Schools, p. 329-332 showing the whole premise was garbage. Where was the vaulted "do no harm" then?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bruce, psychologists don't all live under rocks. Some of us are well aware of fannish culture and other non-white-bread cultures and subcultures.  The rest do this amazing thing -- when they hear a response they're not familiar with, they actually look it up on the intertubes, or they consult with other folks who know more about it.  I'm not kidding here -- these precise types of discussions happen all the time on the professional lists, for precisely this reason.
 * As for color-blindness, actually, that's been studied. Remember that most folks who are color-blind are not profoundly color-blind -- in the one paper I found on a quick search (Corsino, Bruce V. (1985). Color blindness and Rorschach color responsivity. ;  Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol 49(5), Oct, 1985. pp. 533-534.), they found no important differences between color-blind folks and normally-sighted controls.  If someone is known to be seriously color-blind, then duh, that would affect one's interpretation of the variables related to color, but not necessarily to other variables -- what we do is note the difference and consider carefully how this will affect our conclusions.  It's not rocket-science, nor is it the kind of mechanistic black-and-white process you seem to think it must be.
 * As for the rest of your screed, this is a classic bit of nonsense, a crude attempt to change the subject. You're saying that if any psychologist anywhere has ever gone off in some weird direction because they didn't understand D&D in cultural context, that therefore no psychologist can possibly be trusted to be clueful and helpful, and that the entire process of psychological testing must automatically be completely invalid because, no matter what the research says, you know you're right?  Puh-leeze. Mirafra (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, your comments come from a complete ignorance (not an attack, we're all ignorant about many things) about the coding system for the Rorschach. The examples you gave are easily coded by someone with a modicum of training in coding. The average high school student, with some training in coding the Rorschach, could do the coding of that example (interpretation of the coding results requires vastly more training and experience). You essentially created a straw man because your assumptions are completely contrary to realities of Rorschach coding. Ward3001 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Klingons and WoW, #are# examples of a subjective component - and any psychologist who cannot ask 'what do you mean by that?' will not be able to carry out an effective job anyway.

The Snellen charts issue could be easily resolved with a 'computer screen with a controlled random letter generator' (so the testee will be presented with an unlearnt layout) and the colour blindness tests can be used for self-identification of possible visual problems by non-experts without too high a degree of false positives.

The problem is - most laypeople can understand practical comparisons 'we are seeing the effects of using/not using this particular drug/activity/combination of drugs and activities' or the radiologist's 'this mark on the X-ray/this colour on the scan means Y' - but psychology, psychiatry and other means of analysis #seem# to involve too many variables and assumptions.

Given that the article tells people various aspects of the test (does the person rotate the image and ask permission to do so) it could be argued that 'the proverbial testee' already has some pointers. Most of the people looking at this article will recognise the distinction between 'what is done/the tests being used' (which can be at least partially in public view) and the particular analysis thereof (which will depend on many factors, and which will require trained analysis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anon 83.104.132.41, you also don't have a clue about the coding process. First of all, any decent psychologist will ask follow-up questions. Secondly, the coding of such a response is NOT subjective. Every reasonably trained psychologist would code the response the same way. Once again, you've created a straw man because you have no knowledge of the coding process. Ward3001 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment about the psychologist implied that an effective/decent psychologist #would# be asking further questions - and where is the 'straw man' in distinguishing the 'public part' and the 'particular analysis' (which will include the coding 'and all other aspects of analysis') - the 'wolf' response is likely to map quite differently for someone who is into 'vampires, werewolves and suchlike'/Roman military history, or who has certain psychological problems.

Each society has its own cultural assumptions - #who# can do #what# which will, to some extent, define 'normality' eg the Viking Beserker or the Victorian image of the woman as the 'Angel in the House.'

'The areas of vagueness, misunderstanding and unclarity' on this talk page can be used in developing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anon 83.104.132.41, please explain how the "wolf" response would be coded differently depending on whether someone is into vampires or werewolves compared to someone who has psychological problems? Which specific codes would change? Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about the codes - which is the point of the discussion (that laypersons' knowledge of these areas of detail will render the process invalid). Most laypersons can make a general analysis of other people's psychological makeup - the psychologist/psychiatrist/other analyst of the mind will be more specific. The analogy (from what I can understand from the article), perhaps, should be to the nucleotides of DNA - the wolf image may get the same Rorschach-test code, but the combination of codes will be different for the reader/writer of vampire and werewolf fiction or the reenactment society Roman Army standard bearer (wearing a wolfskin) and the person seeing an 'apocalyptic Fenrir wolf image'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have failed to make a cogent point, Anon 83.104.132.41. The fact that you know nothing about coding does not make the coding process done by the psychologist invalid. I've given 600 Rorschachs, coded them accurately, and done so even though the patients knew nothing about coding. Is your point here really that you don't know very much about interpretation based on the coding? That would make sense, and if so I think we can safely dismiss your argument. Ward3001 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to reveal a disturbing trend that one can see throughout the controversy: a barely disguised hostility to the profession of psychology. To follow Grubb's "logic," we would need to say that no surgeon can be trusted because there have been instances of malpractice; internists are all quacks, because they used to believe that bacterial infection was unrelated to peptic ulcer disease. Similarly, the attitude of some posters here has been "if publication damages your precious tests, tough s--t for you." No one would say that if the subject were an MRI or CT Scan. I believe this hostility stems from the fact that many laypersons don't want to believe that anyone else has expertise in the area of mind or psyche, lest there be something about themselves that is uncovered. If psychological tests are discredited, those seeking help for mental illnesses (who deserve as much care as those seeking help for physical illnesses) suffer. As for cultural relevance affecting Rorschach responses: of course this is the case. I'm pretty sure that no one ever gave a response of Ewok or Wookie to a Rorschach blot prior to 1976. So what? The Comprehensive System for coding and interpreting the test was designed in part to take that kind of subjectivity out of the process. When confronted with responses that are unfamiliar, competent psychologists try to find out if there really is such an animal or fantasy figure, or whatever. Questions that come from ignorance are important and need to be answered; Strident statements that come from ignorance only serve to discredit the speaker.SPAdoc (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with SPA. After reading many of the comment on many of the news pages Psychology does seem to garner a negative reaction from the public at large.  This feeling however existed long before this controversy began.  As an outsider to the field I would recommend a thorough self examination of the profession to determine why this distrust exists.  One I would agree is that much of the topic dealt with is mental illness for which people have very strong reactions.  Some however is due to IMO the secrecy of the profession.  And the reactions of many of the members of this profession during the current controversy has done little to improve the professions image in the public mind.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly one possibility is when healthcare workers, whom many people want to trust because they depend on healthcare workers, deceptively portray themselves as knowing something about the field of psychology and then do anything they can to denigrate the profession. There's not much that soul searching by psychologists could do to counteract such irresponbsible behavior by professionals outside their field. Ward3001 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that attempting to force one group's ethics or beliefs on another group is not usually taken kindly in the Western world.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or forcing one's absence of ethics. Ward3001 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is like what Carl Sagan described regarding astronomers' views of Venus--"Nobody knew. As a result imagination ran riot."  Throw in the Hollywood view of Psychology that has little relationship to the real world and the bad press over things like lobotomy and Center for the Treatment of Ritualistic Deviance at Hartgrove Hospital in Chicago where "heavy involvement in fantasy and role-play games" was one of the things to look for Satanic cultism (Hicks, Robert (1991) In Pursuit of Satan Prometheus Press pg 309), as well a near total obsession the US public seems to have with conspiracies and you have a formula for disaster.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhat of a good point about conspiracies. But I would point out that psychologists have never performed lobotomies, and if someone can provide evidence that psychologists were involved in the Center for the Treatment of Ritualistic Deviance I'd like to see it because I doubt there is any. Some things are beyond psychologists' control. We may be good at what we do, but we haven't yet mastered the ability to control other professions (nor should we). Ward3001 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, however the point about conspiracies does show why we should not necessarily trust (at least for the purposes of deciding policy on Wikipedia) the ideas of some given association, no matter how reputable it may be generally considered. We have our own ethics code on Wikipedia, we don't really need external ones that may possibly turn out to not even be quite appropriate. --LjL (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Wade3001 but the facts are against you. "In September, 1989, psychiatrists and psychologists at Chicago's Hartgrove Hospital created the Center for the Treatment of Ritualistic Deviance, one of the nation's first voluntary treatment programs to be offered to adolescents involved in Satanism." Langone, Michael D. (2006) "Satanism and Occult-Related Violence: What You Should Know" International Cultic Studies Association.   Elsewhere we learn that Michael Weiss was the psychiatrist in charge of this little gem and even have a quote from him: "No one will be hospitalized for strange beliefs or unusual values that we would disagree with."  Also the lead in to Langone's paper identifies him as "Director of Research and Education for the International Cultic Studies Association, is a licensed psychologist who has worked with more than 125 former cult members and their families."


 * As for no psychologist ever doing lobotomy you have to remember that Walter Jackson Freeman himself is sometimes identified as a psychologist though psychiatrist seems to be more accurate (President of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (1946-1947) as well as a member of the American Psychiatric Association).  The problem is that John Q Public is perfectly willing to put psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis all together in a blender and since psychiatry is the medical degree while psychology is simply a doctorate with a licensing requirement anything bad there gets thrown into the other piles.  Even popular shows like Quincy ME got the bandwagon stating that in then contemporary (c1980)) LA, CA any person could hang out a psychology shingle.  Listen to PBS American Experience television documentary "The Lobotomist" and see how blended together psychoanalysis and psychiatry are while psychology seems to be out to lunch.  This is the problem.  If the public is distrustful of the field with the actual medical degree how do you think they are going to feel about a field that has just a doctoral requirement and via popular show they think that any Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be one?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee Ward, haven't you noticed that "ethics" means different things to different people? Or did you mean your ethics? Chillum  00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, ethics mean different things to different people. For some people, including some physicians and Wikipedia "administrators", it means nothing. Ward3001 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because someone does not share your point of view does not mean they lack ethics. Do you really thing that you are so right that anyone who disagrees with you is lacking in ethics? You seem to forget that some people think censorship is not ethical so you really are living in a glass hour there. Lets not talk about each other okay? Instead we should stick to the topic which I think is pretty much exhausted, not much more to say to each other. Chillum  00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not talk about each other??? Tell me, Chillum, when you wrote that message to me a couple of lines above, did you think you were talking about someone named Ward in an alternate universe? I don't evaluate someone's ethics by whether they share my view. I tend to look at things like being deceptive about one's expertise, portraying one's self as a healer while at the same time ignoring potential harm to others' mental health, repeatedly misrepresenting others' opinions, and telling someone to not talk about each other while in the process of talking about ... each other. No wait a minute ... the last one doesn't pertain to ethics. It pertains to basic common sense. Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not denying that we have been talking about each other, I was proposing a change. We really should not be as this is not the purpose of this page. Lets not talk about each other, what do you think of that? Chillum  01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Talking about each other just to be talking about each other is something we can do without. The Catch-22 we get into if you are the decider about who is doing that is, you undoubtedly feel that applies to almost everything I've written here and does not apply to most of what you or a few other editors have written here. Talking about what someone says on this talk page or off-wiki (i.e., a newspaper) is very much within the purpose of this talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, please stop bickering. I don't think that the editors who want to publish secure test information lack ethics.  I don't, however, feel that all ethical positions are equally valid.  To put this in perspective, say, with Kohlberg, the editors who are in favor of respecting test security are working from a postconventional mindset -- we're thinking about the social implications of the choice, about what place we think WP should take within the larger social milieu.  That's part of why it's been so frustrating and insulting to us to have people assume that we're coming from more immature viewpoints -- avoiding harm, seeking personal gain, etc.  On the side of disclosing everything, I see many different kinds of arguments coming from many different people.  I have a hard time respecting the ones that are essentially preconventional ("I can do it because I want to and you can't stop me so there!").  The ones that focus on the law-and-order aspects ("WP has a policy that cannot be changed, altered, or reconstrued in light of new information or the specific characteristics of a situation") are frustrating, because it seems that the people are not hearing that we're trying to think about things from a more thoughtful perspective.  Rules were written by humans and can be rewritten by humans.
 * I do also hear a few folks who think they're doing this out of a desire to do good in the world, by freely making all information available to all those who seek it for any reason (a postconventional position). That position is one that I think deserves respect.  It's a position that I agree with in the vast majority of situations.  However, in the extremely specific instance of secure tests, I think that this social ideal needs to be balanced against another social ideal (the need to preserve the ability of professionals to actually do our work to serve the social good) and that's why I've been willing to spend time here talking about it.
 * Now, I think SPADoc makes a very good point about the elephant in the room. WP isn't the only place in which people who aren't psychologists are afraid of psychologists.  Shrinks have a special and conflicted place in the popular psyche, and a lot of the anxiety seems to be centered around the idea that we might somehow have the ability to read minds or control minds.  Of course, we don't.  We're ordinary people, we go to the grocery store and put our pants on one leg at a time.  A software engineer knows how to figure out the bugs in a piece of code.  It seems like magic to me, but I accept that there are things I haven't learned enough about for them to feel easy.  A cardiologist is attuned to the subtle differences in sounds he can hear through a stethoscope.  Similarly, a psychologist is trained about what to look for in what people do and say -- we're trained to be good observers, really.  And how we do that, we're not even remotely secretive about it.  Techniques for active listening, therapeutic techniques, etc, are all widely available, and I don't hear anyone claiming that this kind of information should be restricted.
 * (If someone did, I'd argue strongly against them. Why?  Because one person's exercising the choice to learn more about these techniques, and even to practice them without a license, does not affect the world-at-large in the way that one person's choice to damage the usefulness of a psychological test does.  You can learn to talk to crazy people all you want, and you won't be stopped until your individual actions break your local laws, but your doing so won't affect the ability of other professionals to do their work and the ability of other nonprofessionals to seek help from whomever they choose.)
 * I think some of the issue is that everyone, to some extent, reads and controls the minds of those around them. It's part of what we have to do as a social animal.  And feeling that someone else might be reading or controlling your mind is scary.  The secure tests, as the tools we use to understand what people might not be able to tell us about themselves directly, then become the mad-scientist's 1950's-hair-dryer mind-fryer-things.  But they're just tools.  It's no wonder that people want to attack and destroy them.
 * James makes a good point that psychologists need to reach out and explain what it is that we do, to try to reduce this anxiety. That's why we're here on WP, trying to make it possible for us to do exactly that.
 * But, as with all transference reactions, we also have to accept that the reaction is not necessarily to what we personally have actually done. We need to think about our place within the system, and take responsibility for our own actions, without being drawn into the assumption that whatever someone believes about us must necessarily have been completely our doing.  James, I can't control what you feel about psychologists.  Nor can I change the experiences you've had or the meaning you've made about them.  I have been doing my best in this conversation to be very clear about my motives and goals, and to refrain from making mind-reading interpretations.  I have been trying to change people's minds the old-fashioned way, by talking it out like reasonable human beings.  If you'll listen, I think I've said quite a few times that my goal in joining the WP editorship is to help communicate about psychology, to help answer people's questions in clear and comprehensible language.
 * It's unfortunate that this one area, secure tests, is one where I cannot be 100% open. But I'm willing to say quite a lot, within those boundaries, and to contribute to the general knowledge, because I agree that doing so might help reduce the anxiety of people about what it is that psychologists do, how, and why.   I'm willing to engage in a lot of thoughtful dialogue about what information does and doesn't have to be protected, in order to both maximize the goal of educating the curious public and to maximize the goal of preserving the usefulness of the instruments. Mirafra (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mirafra this is my first and only direct interaction with practicing psychologist since they do not work with mental illness in an emergency environment were I have practiced and trained. I agree that the reaction of the general public is not completely the result of actions of the profession.  Movies and television have probably had more of an effect.


 * The refusal of some to contribute at all to Wikipedia and only make disparaging remarks than justify this based on what seems to be the policies of the psychological associations does not reflect well on the profession as a whole.


 * IMO to get the general public as well as other health care professional to be open to outreach and educational efforts by the field psychologists it must give a little. This will involve giving up on forcefully trying to maintain test security which is no longer possible such as wrt the Rorschach.  Legal threats such as those made against Wikipedia and personal threats and insults against individuals does not win over allies to your profession.


 * I by the way frequently refer patients to psychologist for CBT and will not let my experience here overshadow this practice.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * James, are you seriously suggesting that psychologists violate their professional ethics to contribute to the Rorschach article? Do you realize that, in addition to being an ethical code written for psychologists by psychologists with an overarching goal of protecting the public welfare, in most jurisdictions the ethical code binds psychologists by law in order to maintain their license and avoid legal action against them?
 * Further, are you suggesting that the ethical code of psychologists is frivilous, including the restrictions on violating test security in order to protect the public? And bear in mind that the code cannot selectively state that it's OK to violate the security of one test but not the others.
 * I'll further comment, as I have previously, that the disparaging and damaging comments made by other healthcare professionals is beyond the control of psychologists. I would agree that many professionals need to clean up their act and stop trying to inflict damage on other legitimate and effective healthcare professionals outside their own specific field. Ward3001 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think contributing to the Rorschach article violates your professions ethics. Do you feel that it does?-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that would explain some of the misunderstandings here, so I'm glad you asked the question. Of course it violates professional ethics, and if you understand the ethical code it's quite obvious. Psychologists cannot lend credibility to an endeavor that itself is so contrary to their professional ethics and has the potential to cause damage to the public. And that has nothing to do with copyright. If someone located in a country in which copyright could not be enforced published MMPI test items on a webpage, psychologists could not participate in that process. There are two basic reasons psychologists (not just the ones currently on this talk page) have not contributed to the article recently, one of which is it would violate professional ethics. (I'll not get into the other one so as to avoid unnecessary disputes here). Ward3001 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that, based upon my study of the APA ethics code, that I cannot be an accessory to the intentional process of breaking test security. I've been saying that the whole time I've been here.  It's a bummer, because I was hoping to help demystify some of the tests by writing about them in ways that are perfectly fine within the ethics code (ie, nothing I wouldn't put into a report or otherwise communicate to a non-psychologist), but if folks are dead-set on destroying the tests, I'll have to refrain from helping them. Mirafra (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's quite sad. Both psychologists and non-psychologists could make so many improvements in the article if psychologists could be a part of that process, and I think it's important for non-psychologists to be involved. It's easy for the psychologists to slip into "journal article" mode and create an article that is not easy to understand by the average person, just as it's easy for non-psychologists to overlook some very critical information or overemphasize unnecessary details. Obviously the public has become interested in this article (who knows for how long?), but I fear they'll never get an article that is both readable and accurate. Ward3001 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple of points
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) When we post concerns that the Rorschach is not a valid test we are not pushing our own POV but those of people within the field who have published on the topic. See Wood for example.  These opinions are those from experts in the field.
 * 2) The field of psychology must look forwards. Those who beleive that the Rorschach is useful will have to develop new norms regardless of the outcome of this debate.  They showed these images on fox new with the most common answers and they have been published in many papers around the world this last week.
 * 3) No one here believes psychologists are involved in mind control. What we do all agree is that they use this test in some very important social situation involving some very vulnerable people ( like child custody and criminal investigations ).  And that these results can have a dramatic effect on peoples lives.  What we do disagree on is who should all be involved in the discussions surrounding their use.  One groups thinks this discussion should involve all parties involved ( ie. the world as a whole ).  The other group is trying to exclude everyone who disagrees with their opinion.  Even many of those within there own field.  Some have commented that criticism from those who do not regularly use the test is invalid.  Only those who believe the test is useful use it, well those who do not use the test do not.  The selection criteria guarantees that you get the answer you wish.
 * 4) Discussing this openly is an important part of science. And no one should be excluded from the scientific discussion.  The problems facing the world is not to much understanding of science but to little. "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives" and I think discussion this test in full detail will do so in a positive way.
 * 5) The opinions / ethics of the APA ( with 150,000 members ) should in no way override the opinions / ethics of Wikipedia ( 10 million editors)

My response:


 * 1) Agreed. OTOH the opinion of Wood is a minority one within the field and should be weighted accordingly.  Once you stop doing so, the POV issue appears.
 * 2) True. Not that this excuses the harm that was done.
 * 3) Improper framing of the question. Nobody is trying to exclude "everyone who disagrees with their opinion." This is a straw man. The consensus within the field is that it's a useful test, with a small number of dissenters. Now, how do you include "the world as a whole." Do you propose that usage effectiveness and utility of medical procedures that can dramatically affect people's lives also be judged by electric engineers, plumbers, and hair dressers ("the world as a whole")? Or in your opinion does this have to be psychology's problem.
 * 4) Discussing a test openly doesn't mean laying out all the questions and answers to the test. Indeed from a scientific perspective it defeats the purpose of the test. The opennness of revealing who will be in a placebo group and who will be in a control group certainly doesn't advance science, it just spoils the experiment. Likewise, revealing test items and "answers" spoils the test. We don't have to spread understanding of the medical licensing exam by revealing next year's questions and answers.  You are correct that it does affect people's lives. The Rorschach is a tool that is used in some very difficult circumstances. An example of one life affected by the Rorschach, from personal experience, with identifying details removed.  A psychiatrist was unsure about a very intelligent young man brought by his parents who presented with being guarded, isolating from others, staying in his room for weeks. His observed symptoms may have been depressed.  He showed no overtly bizarre behavior but seemed a bit "off" so the psyciatrist asked for consulation from a psychologist who administered various tests.  During the interview the pt. spoke little, was guarded, but said nothing bizarre.  On the MMPI the pt. took a long time but was smart enough to figure out the "correct" answers on his own by producing a valid and totally normal profile. On the Rorschach the responses were quite psychotic.  as a result antipsychotic medication was tried.  After a few days the pt. had insight into his thoughts, and discussed them.  For months he had been sure that he was getting messages from the television about the CIA spying on him, that even his parents were in on it, and that he had even made plans to either kill them or to flee. This guy was computer savvy, the last thing he needed was to have access to the questions and answers. We can't be 100% sure what would have happened if he had access to this page, but indications are that he would have spoiled the one test that gave a good clue about what had been going on.  How would wikipedia have affected this person's life thanks to Dr. James Heilman's effort to reveal the questions and answers? Well, it's doubtful this person would have gotten the treatment that he needed. As a result he could have hurt someone, or he could have ended up on the streets along with many other untreated people with mental illness (I am using this example specifically because even Wood et al concede that the Rorschach does a decent job at finding psychosis - this usefulness is basically unquesitoned in the field). The efforts of some editors here basically amount to spoiling a useful tool that helps people in the real world.
 * 5) Opinions/ethics of APA are probably better informed on psychological topics than those of non-APA wikipedians.Faustian (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Point 3: Actually this is exactly what we do in the rest of medicine. It is called informed consent. Here is a paper on discussion of cardiovascular disease.   Another one pertaining to PSA.   We get patients involved in there medical decision making.
 * Er...what does this have to do with anything? Informed consent doesn't mean knowing in advance whether you are in a placebo or a control group.  It doesn't mean knowing the questions and answers in advance, either.Faustian (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was an affirmative answer to the question posted above: "Do you propose that usage effectiveness and utility of medical procedures that can dramatically affect people's lives also be judged by electric engineers" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's not, James. The more apt analogy would be for the FDA to canvass a random sample of accountants, electricians, and sociologists to determine whether or not to approve a drug or a new surgical procedure. When I conduct an assessment, I do provide information about the procedures and obtain informed consent. That doesn't mean that I accept my patient's view of which tests to use as equally valid as my own. If someone came into your ER with symptoms of an MI, would you accept his insistence that you give him antibiotics to treat it? I defer to your judgment on the emergency treatment of cardiovascular disease and the evaluation of the literature. Apparently, you don't give experts in other fields the same courtesy. SPAdoc (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point 5:Opinions/ethics are not determined by your profession. One does not get to discount the rest of the world just because you disagree with them.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you assuming that 10 million wikipedians represent "the rest of the world?" (or for that matter that vandalizing the test represents the collective wishes of the 10 million wikipedians?)Faustian (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No and neither do I assume that 150,000 member of the APA support removal of these images from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The APA has issued a statement describing this as harmful.  Wikipedia has not made an ofocial statement either way.  Not a valid comparison. Moreover APA is more qualified to judge something related to a psych test than is wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and Wikipedia has deemed these images encyclopedic which it is more qualified to do than the APA. Now the APA has described it as harmful to the test not necessarily as harmful to people. -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The APA ethics code is all about preventing harm to the public. Releasing the images is harmful to people. Wikipedia has not issued a statement about psychlogical tests. I'd estimate 60 editors on this page have wanted to release the images.  So, a statement indicating the collective opinion of 150,000 experts versus 60 or so wikipedia editors. Faustian (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the APA code of ethics exists to preserve the income of its members. The APA never said that releasing inkblots would harm the public. If the APA were to publish a scholarly paper demonstrate some harm, then perhaps we could weigh that harm against the obvious benefit. But no such harm has ever been demonstrated. Roger (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger, I think you're having fun with us again. Unless they've revised the ethics code within the last day or two, I don't see the "income" issue addressed at all: Could you point that out for us specifically? A direct quote about psychologists' income would be helpful. I hope you're not saying that the ethics codes of all healthcare professions exist to preserve members' incomes. There are and have been some physicians on this talk page that might take offense at such a comment. And the evidence for harm has been presented and discussed repeatedly on this talk page. (In case you're getting ready to demand a link to that, please look for it yourself, throughout the archives). Ward3001 (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger, I suggest that you apologise immediately for what may be very easily construed to be a highly offensive remark. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are offended by what your professional organization does, then complain to them, not me. I see that you use a British spelling, so my guess is that you have nothing to do with the APA anyway. Maybe British codes of ethics work differently, I don't know. But American organizations adopt codes of ethics for the benefit of their members. Roger (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger, I use American spelling. I'm a member of APA. And now you've also managed to offend all the American physicians who might come to this talk page. So I'll ask you for a second time: Give us the specific part of the ethics code pertaining to protecting incomes, with relevant direct quotes. Otherwise, I think it is very much in your best interest to drop this issue before you manage to offend even more people. Ward3001 (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you are an APA member, why don't you ask them yourself about why they have a code of ethics. Not just psychologists and physicians have codes; so do lawyers, engineers, accountants, and others. And yes, those codes exist to protect the members. Roger (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger, I have read the code of ethics many times, and participated in many courses and training programs based on that code of ethics; there's no need for me to ask the APA anything. The APA has provided extensive and thorough response to all of my questions. But I've politely asked you twice for quotes from the APA ethics code that might provide a shred of evidence for your offensive remarks, and both times you have refused to even acknowledge the question. So now let me state it a bit more firmly. Give us direct quotes from the ethics code to back up your accusations, or drop this matter. A three-year-old can repetitively parrot a statement like "APA ethics exist to protect members' incomes", but the three-year-old can't explain the basis for the statement. I think you're much more capable than a three-year-old, so give us the quotes, or continue to passively confirm to everyone that you are simply making things up. Ward3001 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So that's how the ethics of any professional body work in America - for the financial benefit of its members? I think you'd find in other countries such as the UK that many organisations and businesses have a Code Of Conduct, which ultimately works for the benefit of those organisations and businesses, but which may explicitly include advice on matters of ethics designed specifically to protect the client and/or the general public. Whether or not I am personally offended by Roger's remark is beside the point. As it stands it seems quite offensive to any member of the APA. Schlafly do you mean "to protect the members from risk of litigation?" Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not the one making offensive comments here. Faustian said, "APA ethics code is all about preventing harm to the public". The APA code is written by APA members for APA members. The public is not even involved in the process. Martinevans123 suggested that I "apologise". Ward3001 is a member of the APA, but he does not even seem to know the purpose of his own ethics code. All of your comments are wrong and insulting. If you think that I am wrong about the APA ethics code, then go ahead and post your evidence. Tell us why the APA code says what it says about test materials. Prove that the APA ever considered anything other than the financial gain of its members. Roger (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the purpose of the ethics code is to prevent harm to the public. It says so in the preamble: "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline". Naturally this might not fit in with Roger's personal conspiracy theories....Faustian (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, people, stop quibbling about this. The politics of APA have no relevance to this article, and this talk page is not a forum to discuss things very loosely related to its article. Therefore, I strongly suggest this topic is just dropped at once. --LjL (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ethics of APA has a lot to do with this article. So kindly don't tell us to stop talking about it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject of the APA became relevant from the argument that the APA ethics code is evidence that disclosure of inkblots would be harmful. If everyone agrees that this is no evidence at all of harm to the public, then I would be happy to drop the matter. Roger (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree there is no "evidence". I believe that in the absence of evidence one should heed relevant professional opinion. If one takes "the public" to include those who may at some future point be asked to participate in the Rorschach technique, having seen the images here first, there seems to be the potential for harm. Yes, Roger, I suggested that you "apologise", but that was on the basis that the APA (and apparently many other professional organisations) have `ethical' codes not based soley on financial considerations. Apologies if this is seen as forum quibbling. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, Roger. Do you think we're bargaining here, bargaining with the truth?? Do you think this is some sort of game: "If you admit you're wrong, I'll stop making offensive remarks" (followed by sticking one's tongue out). Is that what you think is going on here? A game of who can make up things the most, shout the loudest, and be the most offensive? Give us direct quotes from the APA ethics code to back up your claims. And for that matter, give us direct quotes from the American Medical Association, since you've now included American physicians in your accusations. This is not a game. Ward3001 (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not going to stop telling the truth just because you claim that some people are offended. Do you really need a tutorial on the APA ethics code? If you are really an APA member, then you should be able to explain to us how the APA is relevant. Perhaps this inkblot disclosure threatens your income somehow. Perhaps the APA helps you protect your revenue stream. Perhaps you have an obligation to the APA to censor information and thwart competition. Perhaps you might be embarrassed that you and other psychologists have been using such a phony test for years. I don't know. But I do know that disclosing the inkblots is beneficial, and the APA has never said that that disclosure would harm anyone. Roger (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, the preamble to the APA ethics code states: "This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline". Everyting in the Code is in the Code specifically for the purposes mentioned above, including : "The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.." If that is not clear enough for you, the APA also released the following statement:  "Disclosure of secure testing materials (e.g., test items, test scoring, or test protocols) to unqualified persons may decrease the test's validity. Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardizes the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public - loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose (in some instances only a single instrument), they cannot easily be replaced or substituted if an individual obtains prior knowledge of item content or the security of the test is otherwise compromised." Now, I am sure that your conspiracy theory will view this as a smokescreen or whatever but that as irrelevent as your uniformed opinion concerning the test's uselessness.Faustian (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can now safely dismiss Roger's wild confabulations as in the same category of the aforementioned three-year-old who, confronted with his hand in the cookie jar, claims that his invisible friend gave him the cookie. If three clear and straightforward requests of Roger to provide information from any ethics code of an American healthcare organization does not produce even the slightest attempt at providing a single word from those ethics codes in support of his claims, I don't think anything can save Roger from further embarrassing himself. Let me try to reassure any new American psychologist, physician, or other healtcare professional who comes to this talk page that this sort of childishness does not represent the opinions of anyone else, on any side of any issue on this talk page. I don't intend to waste more time and talk page space on this silliness. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think we can and should safely close this generally pretty inappropriate and somewhat insulting thread. --LjL (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Roger's continued insults should not be addressed any further. Ward3001 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Faustian points out that the APA psychologists claim to protect those "with whom psychologists work". Yes, of course. Not only that, but all professionals claim to work to the benefit of their clients. I don't question that. Faustian also points out that they say that they want to educate the public about their silly ethics code. Again, this is obvious. It is in the financial interest of the psychologists to say these things.
 * The APA also says that disclosure may decrease the test's validity. Maybe that is true in some cases, but I doubt very much that it is true for Rorschach inkblots. The APA certainly does not say that inkblot disclosure will do anything. The APA does not say that non-psychologists should keep the inkblots secrets. And even if the test's validity is decreased and some APA psychologists lose income, the public may benefit.
 * I guess LjL thinks that it is inappropriate to point out that the APA's interest in this matter is to preserve the income of its members. The APA does not even claim to have any other interest in the matter, and does not present any evidence of disclosure causing harm. APA psychologists have been doing research on these inkblot tests for decades, and yet there does not even seem to be even one single study or paper or expert opinion explaining any sort of harm from disclosing these inkblots. Ward3001 is an APA member, and I guess that he does not want to admit this. I don't mind that APA members are making a lot of money off of these inkblots tests, and that the APA lobbies to maintain that income, but there is no reason for the public to cooperate with their secrecy. Roger (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Roger, could you possibly explain why the APA code of ethics is "silly"? Could you tell us how much money the APA members are making "off of these inkblots"? And could you explain how that "one single study or paper" could have been (ethically) constructed? Apologies is my questions look like mindless forum blogging. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much money psychologists make off inkblots, or how much they stand to lose if the inkblots are published. According to the article, the Rorschach test is widely used. You might want to ask the APA or someone in the business. Psychologists do studies on the effectiveness of tests under various circumstances all the time. There is no ethical obstacle to do the sort of test that might support the psychologist arguments for harm. Just read that silly code of ethics if you don't believe me. Roger (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Roger, I'm sorry but I don't think your argument here has any substance. You seem to be arguing from a position of entrenched prejudice and you have yet to offer any rationale at all as to how the ethical problems of running a study which deliberately exposes one group of testees to possible harm could be solved. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think I found something we can agree upon (grin), which is to not feed Roger / Schlafly the troll. He's not helping us talk to each other at all.  Mirafra (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Don't feed the trolls. Most trolls have enough sense to go away after a while when no one responds to them. For some trolls, it takes longer for that to sink in. So if no one makes any further responses to this "ethics and income" argument and Roger is still ranting about it in a week or two, we'll know he's in the latter group. Ward3001 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ward3001 is once again posting ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my points. Roger (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Another editor first calls you a troll (and rightfully so); I'm the one at whom you level the charge "ad hominem attacks". Have you heard of a knee-jerk reaction? Read What is a troll?. And you have made no points to address; you have only parroted "APA ethics protects its members' incomes" without any evidence. Now, I'm finished feeding whatever you are, troll or otherwise. Ward3001 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please Ward, there is nothing in your point that requires attacking the person to make it. Please restrict your commentary to the subject at hand. If you cannot make your point without attacking others then perhaps you need to reconsider it. Chillum  17:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DocJames started this thread by saying that raising the level of debate to include the public is good for the scientific process. Roger seems to agree and adds an element of mistrust of the APA.  I agree with Doc James that the role of Wikipedia includes presenting both sides of scientific debate.  Where I disagree is the level of involvement.  Being neutral requires that Wikipedia not taint or otherwise involve itself with the results of that debate.   We have failed to live up to that core tenant.  I also dismiss Roger's cynical view of the financial motives of the APA.  I think publishing the images might actually benefit individual psychiatrists.  They make good advertising.   However, if we can't trust a national health organization to act in the best interests of the public, who can we trust?  With 150,000 members, there appears to be no lack of criticism and debate.  Should anyone of them choose to present an argument against the 1996 statement, they are free to do so, and we are free to report it.  We have a policy for how to do so.  See WP:MEDRS But so far, no source has been found for Roger's point of view.  Therefore, I feel comfortable dismissing it.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the APA actually said that censoring the inkblots benefits the best interests of the public, then it would be worth looking at whatever support the APA would have for such a claim. In particular, we could look at the supporting evidence, the affected members of the public, the alleged interests that the APA would be expressing an opinion about, and maybe some way of measuring those interests. Such considerations might illuminate this discussion. But the APA does not say that at all. It merely has a general statement in its ethics code about what psychologists should do, without saying anything about what the general public should do. Roger (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciating Conflicting Ethics
I think it's unfortunate that some psychologists have made such a power struggle out of this, rather than maintaining a constructive attitude. Rather than the same old ethics vs. free press debate, there are other angles we could look at.

First, these images being included in Wikipedia should be a red flag to psychologists. They're in the public domain and available on the web - and psychology has not kept up to the computerized world by adjusting itself. Here is an opportunuity Wikipedia has provided for the profession to decide whether it needs to develop new tests and copyright them, or abandon the old tests in favour of existing copyrighted ones. The profession has for years neglected to adjust to the information age in this way, even though for a long time they have known the power of the web and the laws around public domain. There's no point in blaming the media, which has alternate ethics. It's the responsibility of the psychology profession to adjust, rather than assume the media should bend its ethics to psychologists' ethics, as if the ethics of psychologists is superior.

Second, blaming the doctor is meaningless. Anyone could have put the images up. I think it's a good thing to have people who are interested in this subject learn about it. This can provide benefits to the public good. Maybe inspire some readers to study psychology. Or help people think a bit about psychology, which might even lead them to see a therapist down the road. There is no reason to believe the psychology profession's ethic of keeping tests secret does more good than the media's or education profession's ethic of sharing information. Psychologists should realize they live in a shared world with other professions, all of which think differently, and none of which necessarily has the right answer. 66.183.132.33 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Two comments (or a question and a comment): What do you mean by "old" ethics? The APA ethical standards have been revised within the past four years. I'm sure the American Medical Association's and Canadian Medical Association's ethical codes have been revised recently.
 * Second, the issue is more than "blaming the doctor" for posting the images. The issue also has been the professional conduct and ethics of the doctor, that doctor's misrepresentation of himself as an expert in matters he knows almost nothing about or had any training in, and that doctor's denigration of other professionals. Ward3001 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * first point - not "same old ethics"; same "old ethics vs. free press debate."
 * second point - I didn't say the issue was about blaming the doctor. I said the issue here at Wikipedia has nothing to do with the doctor. 66.183.132.33 (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank 33 for his / her very reasoned comments. And sorry Ward but it is you who is misrepresenting what I have said.  You continue to do so even after I have corrected you.  I have not denigrated your profession.  Only certain members of it.  You words speak clearly on there own however and need little help from me.  Cheers.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "correction" of me was itself a misrepresentation of the facts. So, likewise, your words continue to confirm your pattern of misrepresentation, whether we talk about your improperly claimed expertise or your denigration of psychologists even in the very message you just wrote denying it. Thanks for making my points. Ward3001 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

66.183.132.33, I appreciate your thoughtful input in this debate. Ward, perhaps your opinions about James are better suited on his or your talk page than this article talk page. Chillum 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, perhaps my comments are best suited on this page on which James made improper claims about his expertise (and I have provide the link to that above) and on which he has denigrated psychologists. Maybe your constant refrain of "take it to [whoever's] talk page" is getting so tiresome that it's meaningless. Ward3001 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks applies. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointing out an editor's misrepresentation of his expertise is not a personal attack. If I claim to be the world's expert in astrophysics, and proceed to make major changes in the article on that basis, and then I revealed that I am not an expert publicly, it would be appropriate to point that out. Ward3001 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC), James said "Actually, I am an expert". In context, I personally read this as him being an expert, but not necessarily in the Rorschach test; i.e. he was referring to his status as an expert in medicine. Both yourself and Faustian provided rebuttals that he did not counter; thus he tacitly conceded that he is not an expert on the Rorschach. IMO, there's no point belabouring it further. –xenotalk 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this has gotten a bit too personal. Ward, I think that it's reasonable to discuss whether someone has made a claim of expertise inappropriately, but this isn't just about James, and making it a personal fight between the two of you doesn't make you (or any of the other psychology types) look reasonable.  James may be an instantiation of a particular POV that you and I find personally and professionally objectionable, but what we're really talking about here is not about him at all.  Mirafra (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The salient point here is that Wikipedia's article appears at or near the top of search results for the search term "Rorshach test", that is why this debate is valid despite the amount of other easily obtainable information in the public domain. Wikimedia's views RE freedom of speech and articles written by consensus, are at best intellectually dishonest; in that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on say bomb making, or how to make poison. Excluding such information is a political decision based on social responsibility. Exactly the same reasoning should apply as to whether to display Rorschach test images and results. At the very least there should be a button at the top of the article that warns readers that the images and test results will be displayed, to give readers a choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.190.230 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have all along said I was a physcian. It says as much on my talk page.  I have commented that physicians do not learn about the Rorschach in medical school or anywere else for that matter.  How you figured out after all of this that I was somehow claiming expertise wrt to the Rorschach is beyond me.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it makes a nice strawman for people to beat on rather than contest things like Barbara Isanski's "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us" July 30, 2009 article at Association for Psychological Science's web site: "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach."  To date nothing contesting this statement being made through the news section of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology has been presented and I doubt there will be for a while as it is so new.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is tedious. Because Isanski (who is a publicist, not a psychologist) claims in a press release that a 2000 article is "the last word" does not make it so. The APA Journal Psychological Assessment did a lengthy series on the topic in 2001-2003, the overall conclusions of which were that the validity of the Rorschach equalled that of the best personality inventories, including the MMPI-2. The references to this are given in the Society for Personality Assessment statement on Rorschach validity, the reference to which I posted above. In addition further meta-analytic studies have been published in the interim (9 years is more than a "few," especially in terms of scientific research). Despite this, uninformed individuals continue to post claims that the Psych. Science piece is the "last word." This is, unfortunately, what happens when the media gets ahold of a technical issue: laypersons latch onto definitive statements by publicists as if they were scientific truth, and the facts become obscured. We are seeing this with posts like that above.SPAdoc (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, Isanski did NOT say "last word" but rather "most definitive word" a totally different thing. Second, I have to question if some WP:SYN is not going on as to date where have been statement but few actual quote out of these other articles.  Third, we have Dr. John Grohol in "Rorschach, Research and Wikipedia" stating "That very well may be the case, but there's very little evidence that actually shows that any type of pre-exposure to the inkblots taints the results. In fact, I couldn't find a single study that examined this issue. So while it is a widely-held belief amongst many psychologists, it's not a belief grounded in scientific data for the Rorschach (what some psychologists might refer to as an "irrational belief")."  Fourth, as I asked before regarding court cases and Grohol confirmed as far as general modern practice is concerned Rorschach doesn't stand alone but in tandem with other projective and objective tests.  He even sates in the same article linked to above "Because it's administered in a larger set of psychological tests, the psychologist who analyzes the test data is looking for trends or similarities amongst the disparate tests. A single odd score on the Rorschach would likely be dismissed, if not confirmed by other psychological testing data." Finally, going back to the Isanski article this is coming out of the news division of an organization who publishes journals on Psychology.  Certainly an organization that publishes journals on Psychology is going to keep tabs on what its news division is putting out and control it so not to damage its reputation.  It is simple common sense to do so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No evidence whatsoever that John Grohol knows anything about the Roschach, and his comments are on ... huffingtonpost.com??? GIVE ME A BREAK! Bruce, I'm sorry, but you really can come up with some incredible (read that as completely unscientific) sources. I suppose your next scan of the "literature" will be in the tabloids. You are aware that there are peer-reviewed journals on psychological assessment aren't you? Ward3001 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More desperation from Ward3001 as the Huffington Post article clearly identifies John Grohol as the founder of Psych Central.com that "a leading mental health portal that features original, peer-reviewed editorial content, news, research briefs, clinical trials, ratings and reviews of medications and treatments, the popular World of Psychology blog, and a thriving online support community. [...] Psych Central is published by John M. Grohol, Psy.D., a pioneer and expert in online mental health." in many places including the Seattle Times (And that last time I checked the Seattle Times was NOT a tabloid). In Rego, PsyD Simon A. (2007)  "Top 10 Psychology Websites" Clinical Psychology Vol 60 Issue 2 article the survey he did put Psych Central.com fourth with American Psychological Association coming third though the study has clear statistical problems but here is the kicker--Clinical Psychology was published by Division 12, American Psychological Association. A quick search showed Grohol publishing articles in CyberPsychology & Behavior, Journal of Technology in Human Services,British Medical Journal, and many others.  Huffington Post itself has gotten the Webby and Southern California Journalism Award for Online Commentary Awards so it is not at the level of National Enquirer or Star as Wade3001 seems to think.


 * So here we have Wade3001 the person who said he was "an expert on assessment" effectively saying that a man who has published in several peer reviewed journals, whose web site was ranked right below the American Psychological Association's own website in a publication they put out is not usable simply because Wade3001 thinks Huffington Post despite the awards it has obtained is tabloid and that Grohol is not an "expert" in a test that may have problems is ludicrous. It like the only one who can challenge astrology claims is another astrologist.  The other logic problem is this expert argument is if the test does require a certain level of expertise to use properly or criticize then how do you know whoever you are dealing with have reached that level of expertize?  It is not like as with a CPA you can go and get yourself state certified to perform the Rorschach test.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Two comments Bruce. I asked James above to give us a simple, unequivocal, straightforward answer as to whether he claims to be an expert on the Rorschach or any other psychological test. If he can do so, that could bring this issue to a close (or if he is non-commital or vague) let others know whether he is willing to deny expertise in the Roschach. Second point, bolding letters does not make your point more believeable; you have no basis other than your own opinion that the source you mention is the most definitive word on the Rorschach". There are a number of exhaustive reviews of the Rorschach, including subsequent to the one you mention. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good God, you're still banging the drum about which editors here are experts on the test? I am more of an expert than self-proclaimed experts who falsely tried to claim that 80% of all psychologists used the test, that it's considered valid in the field, etc. The point isn't whether *you* ior *I* call ourselves experts, it's what the outside world's experts that can be proven to be so say, and that's pretty obvious. All the latest studies show the Rorschach is pseudoscientific bunk. The people who think it has value are the people who want to get paid big bucks to read bumps on other people's heads instead of using real science or the company selling copies of the test. Of course those people are going to try to claim the test works... and astrologers try to claim astrology works, the flatearthers still say the world is flat, and the "intelligent design" people try to claim there's no evidence for evolution. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can keep repeating your ill-informed personal opinion over and over again, but that doesn't make it scientific consensus. Read the articles SPADoc is referencing, for instance.  The test is certainly not universally used -- no test is.  Part of why psychological evaluation is not done by trained monkeys is that, over time, each professional develops a personal repertoire of instruments they find to be particularly useful in guiding their clinical judgment.  Different people find different types of instruments to be more and less personally useful, even when scientific studies show them to have equal validity.  There are professional disagreements throughout psychology regarding different tests and the best ways to evaluate for different types of conditions.  That's all normal. There are also professional disagreements throughout any professional field, and it can be very difficult for someone who hasn't taken the time to get the big picture to really make sense of it.  Nor are the personal attacks on your imagined nefarious motives of the professionals involved in psychological evaluation even remotely appropriate to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, or WP:NPOV.  Mirafra (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I can hardly imagine that someone whose user page highlights a quote that, "Experts are scum," has a particularly helpful perspective here in terms of helping us come to some kind of consensus about whose professional opinions are worth thinking about. It's hard for me to assume that you're acting in good faith and that you agree that experts are actually welcome in WP when that's something you consider to be important.  (Plus, your rather consistently nasty tone and refusal to cite sources outside of your own head.). Mirafra (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read in context, DreamGuy's the quote on DreamGuy's page there is actually sympathetic to the concerns of experts. –xenotalk 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me Xeno, but which quote are you referring to? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote from his user page. "Experts are scum" ... (because Randy from Boise wants to include mention of sword-wielding skeletons...) –xenotalk 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. When you endorse something like "The Wikipedia philosophy is that experts are scum," -- endorsing the notion that expertise is not welcome on WP in general --  it's kind of hard to tell whether the sympathy is towards someone with real-world credentials or Randy from Boise. Mirafra (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see DreamGuy's comment as just a sarcastic variant of Sturgeon's Law and the "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")" part of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Going over Sagan's list you can see that several of them seem to apply to the Rorschach Test.  Fr example, the Double blind test seems to be the Rorschach Test's biggest stumbling block as explained in "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading" article; the very nature of the test causes problems in this area. I should mention by Mirafra reasoning Ward3001's endorsement of "Wikipedia's days are numbered, I fear, consumed by its own nonfeasance. Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say." doesn't bode well either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, since you brought up the quote on my user page, I should point out that I include you among those editors who have "decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say". No offense, but you're the one who decided to bring up my user page. Did you happen to continue reading and see "We need a content arbcom drawn from reputable reliable institutions that partner with Wikipedia"? Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are using peoples personal talk pages I summit the parts of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit present on my own that I have seen a lot of here: Argument from "authority", Ignoring of "Occam's razor", Observational selection, and Excluded middle.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that we're arguing from authority. We've presented scientific sources numerous times. Mirafra (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That are depending on what you are talking about are either out of date (predating Wood) or require WP:SYN to apply. Then you have the Barbara Isanski article coming out of the APS's website that states Wood's report "remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach" shooting all the claims Wood has been refuted down.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Format of inkblots section
I have drafted a re-formatted version of the inkblots section, that tries to integrate information instead of presenting every aspect separately. I like it better than the current one and I think it's more appropriate (it has also been suggested on the RfC talk page, but I'd like to know if it displays properly in other people's browsers, since it's a slightly involved table. --LjL (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this added detail is excellent. Would support its addition.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, actually, though, there's no added detail: it's exactly the same stuff that is already in that section, just formatted differently. --LjL (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct you are missed those additions.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do all the images, apart from number VII, have coloured backgrounds? Is that how they appear in the 1927 plates? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been wondering that. It could also be some mistaken white balancing in the camera or scanner used (note how the colored ones tend to have a different background from the black and black-red ones). I'd fix them if I knew the reason for their being like this is purely a technical one. --LjL (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks very good. instead of just a gallery the prose is better integrated with the images. Chillum 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say it doesn't look wonderful on 1024 horizontal resolution, though... perhaps we could use a small font for the descriptions? --LjL (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure LjL has done a very thorough and meticulous job of summarsing the most popular responses to the inkblots (in a certain population) in a neat and accesible way, using sound and relable information drawn from Burstein and Loucks (1989), Dana (2000) and Weiner (2007). But this is the sort of information that I would expect to have to go to those sources to find. Why does this level of detail not count as copyvio? Quite apart from this, however, I strongly object to the inclusion of the response detail. If one thinks, as several editors here do, that the images themselves allow for unwanted prior exposure and thus contamination of future results, the publishing of the `top three' responses for each inkbot would seems to constitute much greater scope for the possibiity of risk. How much longer until we see a Location Chart and a Response Record Blank for readers to print off and use at their leisure in their own DIY Rorschach sessions? Or perhaps this is the intention? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've repeated ad nauseam, what might be "the intention" of the reader of a Wikipedia article is the business of neither of us. Secondly, I have not published the "top three" responses for each blot, but the popular responses according to three different authors, which is an entirely different thing. Thirdly, I have no idea why you'd claim this to be the sort of detail you'd go to the sources to find, but if the problem you see is a copyvio, please substantiate it, because I don't think I've went as far as using as much as three words in a row straight from a source. --LjL (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear of your nausea and I'm very sorry if you think I am the cause of it. I had thought this was the most relevant section of the Talk page to raise my objection, obviously having missed it elsewhere. But I believe that in all publishing some kind of model of reader behaviour, even if very informal, is inescapable. I think the fact that the respones are popular and not the "top three" amounts to the same thing as far as risk of contamination goes. The three least popular might present just as much harm. I claim that this is the sort of detail I would need to refer to in a book, because other comparable wikipedia articles on psychometrics do not seem to go the same level of detail about their component items and what each of them mean. I would not expect any popular encyclopedia to go to this level. But thank you for clarifying about no copyvio. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I can understand you may have missed my other statements about what I think should be our stance with respect to reader intentions, as this talk page and its affiliates have become so unwieldly huge. I just don't agree with your idea that we should strive to model reader behavior, however (or decide what's right or wrong for the reader to know), and I am afraid the RfC agrees with me on that (there is a point about whether we should include detailed responses there). --LjL (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding and your direction to the RfC, I shall take another look. I would agree that we need not strive to model reader behavior, but I think that tacit assumptions are inevitable and should at least be recognised as such. I would certainly be very reluctant to decide anything as being "wrong for the reader to know" and in general terms I think "censorship" is not necessarily good. In this one particular case, however, I happen to think that it is a mistake to ignore professional advice. When you say "the RfC agrees with you" do you mean "there are more people who have given support to your statement about censorship" than to alternative statements? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes; well, at the end of the day, after everything has been discussed (a lot), that's how we're gauging actual consensus. I wouldn't call my statement, and others that where very widely endorsed, "about censorship", because although that's part of them, it's not the only part. I'd say that most people would like both the images and common responses publisher, whichever way they look at the issue. --LjL (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another new day is just beginning, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing that confuses me here is whether the goal is to write an encyclopedia article or a scholarly book on the subject. I mean, if I'm a psychologist and I want to read a scholarly book, I'll go get the scholarly book and read it.  I don't need to read some layperson's mishmash of whatever it was that they thought the scholarly books said, because I've got the professional background to read the professional book.  If I'm a general reader who doesn't know anything about the tests or about psychology in general and wants some basic information that would help me understand them better, all the minutiae about scoring technique isn't really going to answer my questions.  So it comes back to this underlying question of who is writing what for whom.  I understand the theory -- you think you're cataloguing all of human knowledge.  But that's not the same thing as duplicating it.  I don't see the value-add here. Mirafra (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Mirafra, the minutiae do not add value. They reduce value for the general reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Mirafra, that you don't see the value-add of Wikipedia over non-free, non-collaborative, non-uncensored, non-neutral, basically non-Wikipedia media. We do. --LjL (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you're concerned about amount of detail, Wikipedia is not paper. --LjL (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My copy of Klopfer and Davidson (1962) talks about a scale used in the analysis of responses termed "P, or popular responses" which may be employed to assess "ability to perceive and think along conventional lines". Is this scale also used in more modern formulations of the technique, such as Exner's? Surely if a reader studies the article as it now stands and remembers the most common responses listed, if he later undergoes the procedure, this particular scale will be severely compromised? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
The basic question is Given that the images are 'available elsewhere and have been for some time' (seemingly, for those who care to search for them), and are out of copyright, what is it specifically about Wikipedia that makes publishing of the images there a problem?

As it seems to be an inherent human characteristic to 'see patterns in random shapes' - clouds, tealeaves, stars in the night sky etc - and most people know that the Rorschach tests involve a number of inkblots and a professional analysing the responses, the tests have already been to some degree compromised.

For the casual observer to the discussion it seems that the key feature of the tests is 'the mechanisms of analysis of the responses' which have not yet made their way into the public domain - until that point (possibly through end of copyright protection) there is no obvious way of the person being tested forcing a particular interpretation. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This has to be the most intelligent thing I have read here that sums up the whole mess. The images themselves are public domain while the materials regarding the interpretations are not.  The way some people are acting you would think somebody posted the entire section on the Rorschach test that was in Big Secrets on Wikipedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither the pictures nor any specific interpretation of them or method of evaluation have ever been copyrighted. They are not in eligible for copyright! --rtc (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er ... "not ineligible for copyright". I assume your double negative means the images are eligible for copyright. Let me invite you to read the talk page and the archives, where both sides of the image debate have clearly stated that the copyright on the images expired 70 years after Rorschach's death if not earlier and cannot be renewed. Please read Copyright. And of course popular responses are not copyrighted. One or two words cannot be copyrighted. No one has ever claimed that they are copyrighted. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are ineligible for copyright, sorry for the false double negative. They were never copyrighted. Neither the images, nor any method of evaluating responses to them. --rtc (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great comment Jackiespeel the intuitive nature of the test, the lack of copyright and Wikipedia's mandate all rule the continued discussion of the images moot to some degree. I wish we could move forward to discuss the content of the article vs. that images. rtc do you mean to say that the images were not eligible (ineligible) for copyright? That is interesting, I was not familiar with this. Quasistellar (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I mean. You cannot copyright random inkblots, because there is no creativity involved in making them. These inkblots were never meant to be art or an expression of some idea or concept, but as devices for psychological tests. And devices cannot be copyrighted, only patented. --rtc (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe in some alternative universe. Have you actually read this talk page?? Hermann Rorschach DID in fact copyright his inkblots. Almost everyone on this talk page except you would agree that he did. Creativity has nothing to do with this. If I splatter ink on a piece of paper and publish it, I can copyright it. Furthermore, H. Rorschach's inkblots were not random. He very carefully made them, including repeated attempts to get them like he wanted them (we have unpublished "drafts" of some of his inkblots), and he altered them so that they would conform to the way he imagined them. Read Exner Volumes 1 and 2. If you have anything factual to say, please feel free on this talk page, but we don't need this utter nonsense that you have made up without any knowledge of the history of the Rorscach test. Ward3001 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't understand. That copyright was invalid. Lots of invalid copyrights were granted. It does not matter how much skill and effort Rorschach put into these random inkblots or how carefully he made them. That does not make them creative works. In the same way that you cannot copyright the theory of relativity merely because repeated attempts were needed until it was found. Or are you trying to say that these inkblots were meant to be some piece of fine art, and not as devices for a psychological test? --rtc (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't understand, Rtc. Where is your case reference to when and how a copyright claim was tested in law? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A copyright claim does not need to be tested in law to be invalid. --rtc (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How else is that invalidity proven? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the Münchhausen Trilemma, nothing at all can be proven. This discussion is unnecessary, since if the inkblots have ever been copyrighted, then this copyright has expired. My objection was mainly concerning the legality of describing concepts and methods that are related to these random inkblots and that have been published in books that are still in copyright. --rtc (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but of course. But am not sure you'd find many copyright lawyers who'd give Agrippa the time of day, Baron or no Baron. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? --rtc (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So copyright is a legal concept, not an ethical one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyright is a concept that has both legal and ethical aspects. --rtc (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd still maintain that copyright is a legal device, which may very well have ethical reason for its origins, but which is wholly dependant for its continued existence on statute, case law and a judiciary. But it seems very unfortunate if, as you and Agrippa suggest, "nothing can ever be proven". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyright does not only have ethical "reasons" for its origins, but also ethical consequences and it is discussed with respect to these consequences daily. Copyright is not a "legal device"; the legal system is not there as an end in itself! I do not see anything unfortunate in the fact that nothing can ever be proven; except perhaps unfortunate for some authoritarian dreams. But this discussion is deviating. I was saying that it is not an argument against the invalidity of a copyright claim that there are no professionals or court decision that have found it to be so. You wrongly seem to assume that truth is what is being defined as true by professionals or court decisions... --rtc (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyright has more financial than ethical reasons for its origins and more financial than ethical consequences. But once we all accept the fact that the materials were once copyrighted, this discusssion is not that relevant any more. Because of the change in US law (not any change in US ethics). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Copyright has financial aspects, too. I still think that these random inkblots have probably never been copyrighted, however. --rtc (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And judging by the evidence in front of my eyes, I still think you are wrong. You seem to have a different defintion of copyright to everyone else. What part does randomness play in copyright law, exactly? Why don't we publish a few high resolution Jackson Pollocks? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a different "definition" of copyright, I'm referring to the same copyright law. We don't publish Jackson Pollocks because they are works of art, and hence copyrighted. The threshold of originality for works of art is very low, however devices for psychological tests, whether working or not, are not considered as works of art. --rtc (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rorshach's inkblots might easily be considered works or art by many people. But they have been put to a novel use instead of being hung in a public gallery. But I fail to see where your discussion over copyright here is going. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what people consider these inkblots to be, but what they were created for. The context in which they have been created is unambiguous. Your discussion is in fact going nowhere. My main point was that you can describe methods, interpretations and whathever concerning the Rorschach test even if the respective sources are under copyright, as long as you change the wording. Because it's not the content that it copyrighted, but only the specific formulation. Some Rorschach adherents were suggesting the opposite. Even if someone created inkblots and published them, and even under the false assumption that they were copyrighted, we could still use them under fair use. --rtc (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, "my" discussion. Sorry, Rtc, but I have no idea what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion by asking whether the copyright claim has been tested in law. --rtc (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe my question led to our discussion? I still have no idea what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then obviously there's no need for discussion. --rtc (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand. Where is your evidence, besides your opinion, that the copyrights were invalid? Ward3001 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The notion of evidence presupposes the existence of inductive reasoning. I think that inductive reasoning does not exist. If you are addicted to the notion of evidence, then you should be the first to show evidence that my opinion is false, not the other way around. And of what relevance is it? If any copyright ever existed, it has long expired. What I was trying to say is that if there is some writing, guidelines for evaluation, methods, interpretations or whatever about Rorschach's random inkblots, then they may be described in the article (perhaps in a slightly different wording), because these concepts are not copyrighted as such, only their particular expression. --rtc (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Rorschach copyrighted his works and whether or not the copyright was based, claiming that "creativity has nothing to do" with copyright is quite wrong. --LjL (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, the Rorschach inkblots, together with the book describing how to use them, were copyrighted. That isn't inductive reasoning, it's a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The book as a whole may be copyrighted, but that does not imply that the inkblots are. Nor is it the case that the concepts described in the book are copyrighted. Only the description itself is. But you can describe these concepts in many different wordings, and if it does not happen to be basically the same wording, then you don't have a problem with copyright. The problem is that some people here seem to be claiming that the methods and concepts described within book about these inkblots, or the content of other books that are still in copyright, may not be reproduced here. And that is not true. --rtc (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am unclear why this matters, I think we can all agree that there is no copyright now. Unless we want to have a section on the copyright status of the images then I don't see how this point of contention has any bearing. If we are going to have such a section it will be based on reliable sources, not speculation. Chillum  17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The questions/issues
The sort of questions that should be tackled, rather considering APA guidelines (which belong on the talk page for that article)

Given that there is 'background information' on the images and the testing (as I suggest above), and the images can be 'found in several places by anyone who cares to look for them' what is the specific ethical issue raised by placing the images on WP?

Following on from this, as there is information in the text on how the subject's responses to the images affects the interpretation of their responses should this not be of more concern?

There are 'any number of' books on testing IQ and psychometric testing - how, and in what manner, do the Rorschach tests differ from these?

The problem is the dividing line between checking physical issues - where there is a degree of consistency/'this is something that needs to be checked' - and 'analysis of the mind' where there is an actual or perceived degree of fluidity in symptoms, response or rationality which will change over time and with location. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, great point Jackiespeel. An encyclopedic article on the Rorschach test should include both the images and the methodology. The article should not venture into the realm of diagnosis as the degree of subjectivity is so much greater. My worry is that the article will become inundated with factoids relating to each individual inkblot panel.


 * Naive question as a new Wikipedian; this talk page and the RfC seem to agree on their inclusion, when/how do we move forward? Quasistellar (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question... --LjL (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic ban of editors if they continue to disrupt the talk page or article once the RfC closes? Verbal chat  09:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Garycompugeek (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppressing dissent is great when you're in the majority, isn't it.Faustian (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC
 * Could we have your defintion of "disrupt the talk page" please, Verbal and Gary? And any examples that currently exist in these discussions? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. As the minority has claimed several times (more or less appropriately) that consensus can change, we probably shouldn't give newcomers the impression that there is no dissent at all or that it shouldn't be expressed. I'd rather move discussion of "harmful" material to remove to a subpage, as Xeno tried to do with the images, but not merely about the images, and strictly enforcing respect of that. --LjL (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any 'accessible to the non-specialist in this field writings' on the psychology of vandalism, edit wars and other disruptive activities? (Many of us will be specialists in fields other than 'analysis of the mind.) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mex-psych's comments
If a psychological test has validity it is validity for some purpose. To say that the Rorschach test is completely invalid for all purposes is simply false. It is invalid for some purposes. For examples, if a someone has had the test when they have the child custody fight, or in criminal assessment of offender, then it would be mostly the invalid uses. We do not suggest the blood test for the broken leg. It does seem perhaps that because some people have had this test given to them or they are aware of it, in situations far beyond the validities of the Rorschach test that there is motivation to expose the test completely and conveniently. This test has some valid uses for example in diagnosis of the type of thinking disorder for example - the difference between the schizophrenia and the psychosis which may occur with the bi-polar and very serious depression.

The "APA" is one psychological organization in the world, there are many others in many countries. A few editors from one group in mostly I think one country but certainly from one language group will dictate to the rest of this world? Very troubling to me and even more to my colleagues who cannot respond in the English. The perspective of the users of these pages of wikipedia do not take into account the rest of the language cultures everywhere else. If peoples would be so kind as to understand that the principle of the free information in all situations has balances with other principles such as those of needing tests that will be valid for some specific purposes this would be of help. There are more principles than 'all information shall always be available to everyone'. Mex-psych (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mex-psych, I agree whole-heartedly with all the the points you have very eloquently made here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Mex-psych. We must consider all things in balance.  Information may have intrinsic value, but not as much value as the knowledge of how to use that information.  Providing information that destroys knowledge and utility is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia.  See encyclopedia.  The images do not advance the mission of an encyclopedia.  Because of this, the policy of Ignore all rules applies.  See further discussion at  this SUBPAGE See also the fable The Scorpion and the Frog and The tragedy of the commons  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It has often been said that, for IAR to apply, it must not need to be explicitly invoked... Seriously, IAR isn't a weapon to go against what the majority of Wikipedians think. --LjL (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that IAR is not a weapon to go against the majority, just as consensus is not determined by majority rule or ignoring the minority. Ward3001 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At the same time, consensus is hardly unanimity, and I feel quite confident that opinions have been heard and viewpoints have been stated, especially with the current RfC. And please, considering some of the other comments I've seen too, check out also the Not hypothetical section. --LjL (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As of right now, I don't see any changes in the article that have resulted from the majority listening to the opinions of the minority. We'll see whether that changes with the RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Listening to" doesn't necessarily mean "compromising". A few people seem to be under the impression that when there is a minority, then reaching some compromise where the majority concedes something is necessary. It is not really. --LjL (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true. There has been no compromising. That's known as consensus by majority vote. Ward3001 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And thus no consensus as defined by wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, but I'm tired to explain it. Just read the links I've given. --LjL (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? Here it states "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions." Obviously the majority wants its preference and enforcesit through majority vote, there is no cooperation from the side of the majority, there is no consensus. Further down, "A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time." No synthesis, no common ground.  No consensus. Faustian (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus never means majority rules I believe, it you think it is majority then there can be the strategy made. I looked up the consensus in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus. Wikipedia is certainly not the consensus in the way it operates. For example, maybe if many psychologists from many places all agreed with the idea to remove many of the inkblot pictures and next all joined the wikipedia then would the ones who want all images in the webpage believe it was consensus? If so, please provide these instructions and perhaps this can be obtained. This inkblot issue came up with wikipedia over the summer, and we do not have the psychologists at the meetings or at the hospitals and in the clinics so much. When it resumes in the fall (autumn) then we could get overwhelming numbers if the consensus means to simply making a good hearing of the opinions and then a vote carried by the majority. I thank the people for the toleration of my writings in the English. Mex-psych (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're all supposed to listen to the APAs ethics guidance, apparently, on this issue. Is this the same APA that is complicit in torture? Doesn't seem very ethical, or a reliable source for ethics! Verbal chat  15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Psychological Association has also expressed its concerns. --Vannin (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We need a strong consensus to even consider going against policy, we generally don't bypass(or even compromise) policy to satisfy a vocal minority. Chillum  21:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad no one has defended the APA as a source of ethical mores. Verbal chat


 * I should like to wholeheartedly defend the APA as the professional body in the US best suited to providing advice and guidance on the ethics of psychological techniques and testing. Could you suggest any better suited organization or group? But could you also explain how the APA is "complicit in torture" and how this is relevant to the present debate? Apologies if this appears to be forum quibbling. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are being touted here as a reliable source for ethical guidance that should overule wikipedia's own polices, however their complicity as a body in the torture of terrorist suspects calls into question their ethical standing. one example story. Their unethical collusion in torture is relevant to their standing as a source for editorial ethical guidance on this page. Verbal</b> chat  21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your example story, Verbal, is perfectly reliable and the subject is well-known. But your argument seems to be that because some members of the APA were complicit with the Bush Admistration's demands for support in the unethical treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the advice that the organisation offers, and has offered since long before Bush appeared, for protecting psychogical test subjects, is flawed or wrong. I'm sorry but I can't really accept that this argument holds water. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ethics mean different things to different people. Wikipedia's ethics are against censorship, my personal ethics are against torture, the APA has its own set of ethics. That really is the crux of the matter, we all have our own ethical beliefs. It is not reasonable to impose one group's ethics on another. Chillum  21:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We can't use individual codes as our guide; especially not from an organisation that refused to take action against torture. This shows it to be a poor source for ethical guidance, which was my point. Not the straw man that one invalidates the other. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the APA, in response to widespread outcry from amongst its membership, continues to reaffirm the no-torture-no-exceptions stance. Here's an article: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/04/torture.html  There was a vote of the membership last fall to take yet a stronger stance, and there is ongoing discussion of the possibility of changing the Ethics Code to remove a section that a few folks were claiming allowed them to engage in torture anyhow (personally, I support that removal).  To say that, "A few psychologists acted against the statements of the APA and cooperated with the Bush Administration's torture policies, therefore we cannot trust anything that any psychologists say about the ethics of test security," is rather flimsy logic. Mirafra (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And who said that? I didn't. I said that this shows them to be a poor source for ethical standards that wikipedia should adopt. To be trite, a stopped clock can be right twice a day, but wikipedia shouldn't adopt it as a timekeeper. Please stop with the star man reinterpretation of my objection to using the APA as an ethical source. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the same rules of evidence and verification apply to talk pages as they do to articles. WP:TALK  I think both sides in this thread have aimed to show evidence as to the unreliability or unethicality of the APA's information that we are undermining the utility of a public resource by disclosing test date (questions and answers) But according to WP:MEDRS, a statement by a national health organization can only be controverted by a source that directly claims to do so.  Indirect or tangential arguments may not be place in juxtoposition.  If the 1996 statement by the APA were unethical as Verbal is trying to argue, then someone would have pointed that out by now.  Verbal should be able to cite a source to support his claim.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you people only respond with Straw man arguments? I have shown that the APA is not a good source for unquestioned ethical guidance, and that all what I have claimed. APA policy should not override WP policy, especially when APA ethical policy has so recently been found wanting. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try get any supposed "straw man argument" out into the open. You seem to be suggesting that besause the APA did not speak out against a specific breach of ethical behaviour by some of its members, then the whole of it's "ethical policy", past and present, including any advice on psychometrics, cannot be trusted, regardless of what it says? Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why, did anyone suggest that information contained in the 1996 statement of the APA should not be included in the article? --LjL (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before it disappears so quickly, could I just agree with the edit by anonymous airport user ip 209.xx.xx.xx, which was rather hastily removed? Particularly this part:

(removed per WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Do not restore justifably removed material.)
 * I dont see how this part of the comment, with its two useful links, constitutes any contravention of either WP:NPA or WP:TALK. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, please could you explain why you think that part of the comment, which opposes your own views, contravenes WP:NPA or WP:TALK? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Write it in your own words, or ask the contributor to rewrite it without the PA, and staying on topic. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So no reasons. Where is the PA that I have to leave out? Surely the comment was much on topic as yours? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New policy
Am attempting to create a policy pertaining to suppression of information / content to hopefully resolve this issue. User:Jmh649/Suppression of content Would appreciate any comments.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need more policies, per WP:CREEP, we just need people to follow the ones we already have. DreamGuy (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Attitudes
Some topics will generate much heat - and develop into discussions of, and attitudes towards, the particular topic and its practitioers (said in a neutral tone).

'Analysis of the mind' will always be contentious and likely to be dependent on other aspects (Stalinism, 21st century Western culture, hunter gatherers etc etc) #or perceived to be so affected# - physical testing is less so dependent (though in some cases it can be - eg the effects of class). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All the more reason why WP might want to consider whether it is wise to purposefully exclude the folks who have actual expertise and broad knowledge of a subject. Mirafra (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How very true, Mirafra. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Prior exposure

 * " ... what is it specifically about Wikipedia that makes publishing of the images there a problem?", possibly it's because some editors feel that Wikipedia has a duty toward ethical considerations which "other sources" of the images, past and present, do not, and probably never have done. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ethical considerations imply a duty towards a need for the pictures to be published here. --rtc (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the non-publishing of the pictures here allow for the possibility of harm to the reader? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Put in Freudian terms, the reader might be deeply traumatized by noticing that he is being denied some information on the subject. SCNR ;)--rtc (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I suppose the trauma would be that much deeper if he noticed, but immediately suppressed it into his sub-conscious? But I'm not really sure the novice wikipedia reader would ever notice. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, denying the reader relevant information harms their understanding of the subject. Chillum  20:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the harm arising from a psychological misdiagnosis is likely to be greater than the harm arising from a diminished understanding. If the reader wishes to seek out the images elsewhere, after reading the article, and increase his "understanding" of the Rorschach, he could do so (even be directed to do so). But it's not so easy for him to unsee the images in the Wikipedia article if he wants to. I was attracted to Kallimachus' proposal at Requests for comment/Rorschach test images and I too have no problem with a disclaimer as such, but I was left wondering if this was not putting too much onus on a novice reader to prptect himself, one who may simply skip all the text to get to the image(s). And what happens if the article image became top in the Google Image list - where is the disclaimer then? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I would argue that the harm arising from a psychological misdiagnosis is likely to be greater than the harm arising from a diminished understanding." If the test cannot cope with this, it is bogus and should not be used, period! Tests for AIDS diagnosis didn't stop working either when their working was described in detail in Wikipedia. --rtc (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting criterion for a test being bogus or not bogus - if a test doesn't work because the subject has seent he questions and answeers in advance, it's bogus? Do you then consider all psychological tests, licensing exams, finals exams etc. bogus because all of them would be compromised if the test taker had access to the questions and answers in advance.  Conversely, if hypothetically an AIDS vaccine were ruined by prior exposure would you be okay with exposing everyone to it, thus preventing the vaccine from helping those people, and declaring that your action was no big deal because the test was "bogus" anyways?Faustian (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "if a test doesn't work because the subject has seent he questions and answeers in advance, it's bogus?" that's right. "Do you then consider all psychological tests, licensing exams, finals exams etc. bogus because all of them would be compromised if the test taker had access to the questions and answers in advance." Your argument presupposes something (the second part of the sentence) which is wrong. In fact, in my country, drivers licensing exam questions are known in advance and used in theoretical training. I personally know professors who sometimes publish their final exams in advance. No, it does not change the results; since they are not as bogus as the Rorschach test. "Conversely, if hypothetically an AIDS vaccine were ruined by prior exposure would you be okay with exposing everyone to it, thus preventing the vaccine from helping those people, and declaring that your action was no big deal because the test was 'bogus' anyways". There's a little difference! People are not (forcibly) exposed to the test here but (voluntarily, they choose to read this article) to a description of its workings and details! I am against forcibly exposing people to any vaccine as much as I am against forcing anyone to take the Rorschach test. But I'm having no problem at all with "exposing" people to a description of the workings of the AIDS vaccine, even if that makes it stop working. --rtc (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should have any disclaimers in the article. We already have the risk disclaimer: "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL", this seems to cover it. We don't need individual disclaimers at the article level. I think if people are doing google searches then that is googles responsibility to put a disclaimer. Chillum  22:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally we expect people who know nothing about the Rorschach to, when they come upon this page, scroll all the way down to the bottom of the screen, past all the images without looking at them, and click onto the disclaimer page and then read it.02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what we do everywhere else. If a reader knew nothing about the test, read about it here (or in their local library) and then went to a practitioner for a diagnosis, then the practitioner should ask if they have read anything about the test, and if they have, use different tests.  I don't think we should be any more or less cautious about this than a public library.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems a fair point, Hrothulf, except that considerably more effort is required to visit the public library. If, as has been suggested, a mistaken and unwanted prior exposure is soon forgetten about consciously, who is to say that it may still not affect future response at a subconcious level? The testee may not remember the prior-exposure and may not be able to admit to it, and the testee will be none the wiser. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's make one thing clear: That test should never be used, whether on someone who knew it before or not, whether consciously or unconsciously. If any "professional" uses this test for real, he should be put into some mental institution, because he's probably mentally ill. If by publishing the details of the test, wikipedia can make it invalid even according to the "professional's" own criteria and make them stop using it, then it's wikipedia's ethical duty to do this, to finally put a stop to those people's games. There is a reason for why use this test for diagnostic purposes has been banned in many countries. --rtc (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, what are you talking about? Re: "If any "professional" uses this test for real, he should be put into some mental institution, because he's probably mentally ill." It's a frequently used test around the world, used by 80% of American psychologists who do clinical assessments, it's also the 3rd most popular test in Spain and Latin America, 4th in Japan, etc.  Over 6,000 studioes have been published using this test as an instrument.  Are you saying you know more than most of the experts? Your statement about "There is a reason for why use this test for diagnostic purposes has been banned in many countries." Which ones?  Keeping in mind of course that nobody bases diagnoses on any one test including this one.Faustian (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's a frequently used test around the world, used by 80% of American psychologists who do clinical assessments, it's also the 3rd most popular test in Spain and Latin America, 4th in Japan, etc. Over 6,000 studioes have been published using this test as an instrument." Scaring! If that's true (which I doubt), then it's high time for Wikipedia to put an end to this. "Are you saying you know more than most of the experts?" I don't understand what you are referring to. I do not care what these experts know, I do care whether what they say or do is right. "Keeping in mind of course that nobody bases diagnoses on any one test including this one." If the diagnosis is not at least in part based on it, then why is this test used at all? "Which ones?" The test has been deprecated in Germany for ages, and I'm sure there are other intelligent countries where it's the same. Sometimes pseudosciences are quite persistent even among professionals and it takes some time for them to be purged from society. If Wikipedia with its "no censorship" policy can help with that goal then that's good, isn't it? --rtc (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So Germany is "more intelligent" than the US, Latin America, Japan, etc.? You can doubt all you want, the facts are referenced in the article and you can read about them here also: . I am somewhat in awe of your degree of pride to claim to know more than the majority of the experts in the field about what is or is not valid within the field. Experts make diagnostic decisions and the Rorschach is one of many valuable tools they use; nobody makes a diagnosis based on the Rorschach (or any other test) alone. IF not for the real harm casued to individuals by their actions, it would be funny to have peple who know nothing about a test, who are even in the field, go ahead and try to purge that test based on what they in their lack of knowledge claim to be "pseudoscience."Faustian (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Germany is more intelligent, since they have long "banned" this ridiculous pseudoscientific test (or at least do not use it). Again: I do not care what these "experts" know, I do care whether what they say or do is right. I also do not care how many people are addicted to some pseudoscience or what field they belong to or how much they pretend to know, it does not make it less of a pseudoscience. If anybody uses the bogus Rorschach test even as part of some diagnosis, then he should go to some mental insitution or at least to prison. The Rorschach test has no value at all, and has caused real harm to individuals. Please face reality: You can't stop the test from being published here. It will stay here and hopefully finally cause the "experts" to stop using it. (It didn't invalidate the test, though; it has been invalid from the very beginning.) --rtc (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your unempirical beliefs.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this valid argument. --rtc (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the one hand we have thousands of studies based on empirical research, and opinions based on the results of those studies. On the other hand, we have your belief and declaration that it is "pseudoscience."  Whom to trust?Faustian (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a study based on empirical research; claiming that one exists is one of the properties of pseudoscience. Further, a distinction between "'outcome' of empirical research" and "belief" is a false dichotomy. And the very question of whom to trust is also irrelevant. We don't need to trust anyone, so why should we? --rtc (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rtc, I feel that by making the argument that "anyone who uses the Rorschach is mentally ill" and that it's the job of wikipedia to prove that the Rorschach is useless, wholly discredits your position in this debate. Furthermore, I suspect that many of your fellow proponents of inkblot image inclusion would find your argument bizarre and offensive. Are you really saying this in good faith? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I am saying this in good faith, and I know that from your bizarre viewpoint, the truth must look bizarre and my statements, which are not directed against you, but against the Rorschach test, must seem offsensive to yourself, but they are not; I never attacked yourself, but only the test, and if you identify yourself so strongly with the test that you see criticism of it as a personal attack on yourself, then I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. I did not say that it is the job of wikipedia to "prove" (whatever you mean by that word) that the Rorschach is useless. The Rorschach test, after all, is useless and has always been useless. It's wikipedia's job to disclose the details about the Rorschach test to the general public, and so help stop any use of this nonsensical method. --rtc (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do find this and other arguments at the very least a waste of talk page space, and when I say at the very least... --LjL (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * His comment was a very sincere confession of his true motivation: to try to destroy the test. I do not think this is your motivation, but I wonder how many others on your side share Rtc's motive but are less candid?Faustian (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The test was never intact, so there is nothing to destroy about it. I want its use to be stopped, since it has done enough harm (severe harm), and if Wikipedia's publication of the images and commentary have this as a consequence, then it is an ethically desirable thing for them to be on the page. --rtc (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This has to be one of the more bizarre arguments in the entire discussion. Claiming that "empirical research is a property of pseudoscience" is tantamount to saying that there is no such thing as science, since the hallmark of the scientific method is constructing studies designed to collect empirical evidence. Since all methods of medical treatment have been developed using this method (and collecting "evidence" for their effectiveness), I assume that you refuse to use any medication or other medical intervention when you are ill or injured, since that would be hypocritical on your part. SPAdoc (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You quote me as saying "empirical research is a property of pseudoscience", but I never wrote that. Empirical research is not a property of pseudoscience. What I said was that claiming that there is a study "based on" (whatever that means) empirical research is pseudoscientific. But I have to say that there is no such thing as scientific method, or, put differently, that there is no method that is peculiar to science. I disagree that any method of medical treatment (or anything else, for that matter) has been developed using the alleged method of collecting "evidence" for their effectiveness, and I do not see see any hypocrisy in making use of medical treatment. All these are naive, logically untenable positivistic views. --rtc (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, I am confused. Medical treatments are tested by using them on patients with a target ailment (usually in an RCT, whenever possible). If those who are given the treatment recover from the ailment (or improve according to pre-set criteria, that is what we call "evidence." Do you have some other definition of what is a relatively common English word? I, for one, would not be willing to subject myself to a treatment that had not been tested in this way and for which "evidence" does not exist.  I know there are post-modern arguments in the academia in which the existence of reality or data are debated, but these are rather irrelevant when you are trying to cure an illness or build a bridge...SPAdoc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * 'If those who are given the treatment recover from the ailment (or improve according to pre-set criteria, that is what we call "evidence."' What you mean I would not call "evidence", but "statements about certain frequencies". But the notion of evidence is not merely a word (else we wouldn't have a disagreement), but calling something "evidence" makes the implied claim that from this "evidence", we can make a conclusion of the kind that some treatment works or at least works with a certain probability. I think that this cannot be so, and that such claims are in conflict with basic logic. We do not choose a treatment because of any "evidence" that it works, but we choose it because, by testing, we found out that it remains as the least problematic action that we know to cure the illness in question. Yes, I most certainly deny the existence of data and evidence with the mentioned implications just as I deny proof or epistemological probability itself (though I don't see why I should deny the existence of reality). And I don't think that this fact is rather irrelevant when you are trying to cure an illness or build a bridge: If we stop testing treatments for situations in which they don't work and if we stop searching for side-effects as hard as we can (perhaps long term side-effects that are not apparent at first sight), or if we stop checking the stability of the bridge under rare, but real circumstances, and if we do that merely because we think that we have collected "enough evidence" to "conclude" that they are okay, then we will sooner or later face the consequences of this wrong decision. --rtc (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is so off-topic. Will this ever look like a normal talk page some day? --LjL (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find that 80% number to be dubious. Chillum  13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your personal opinion that contradicts what reliable sources say: . Rorschach 4th most frequently used test, used by 80% of clinical psychologists in assessment practice. Surveys of training directors show the Rorschach to be one of the 3 most commonly used instruments. The Rorschach has never been challenged in any court on scientific grounds.  BTW, RTC just claimed that anyone using it must be mentally ill.  A few editors have stated that they use it.  Let me guess: you're not going to say a word about his lack of civility.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "that contradicts what reliable sources" There is simply no such thing as a reliable source in the epistemological sense. "The Rorschach has never been challenged in any court on scientific grounds." How hard did you try refuting your ridiculous claim? --rtc (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that Meloy, J. Reid; Trayce L. Hansen; Irving B. Weiner (1997) "Authority of the Rorschach: Legal Citations During the Past 50 Years" Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 69, Issue 1, pages 53 - 62 DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6901_3 states that 10.5% of the 247 case in the sample were challenged in terms of reliability or validity and even Weiner, Irving B. (1996); "Is the Rorschach Welcome in the Courtroom?" Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 67 admitted 6 challenges (with one successful) of the 7,934 cases he looked at Faustian is spouting OR nonsense with his "The Rorschach has never been challenged in any court on scientific grounds" claim.  Even the pro Rorschach literature admits it has been at least challenged. On the other side Erickson, Steven K.,  Scott O. Lilienfeld  Michael J.  Vitacco (2007) "A critical examination of the suitability and limitations of psychological tests in family court"  Family Court Review Volume 45 Issue 2, Pages 157 - 174 is very harsh claiming the success rate is more due to a lack of proper knowledge on the part of attorneys involved then any scientific merits of the test itself.  Worse Alto v. State (1977) states that Rorschach is not a test but a technique and Usher v Lakewood Engineering & Mfg Co. (1994) issued a protection order for the plaintiff regarding the MMPI, Rorschach test, and TAT due to questionable validity.  So not only has Rorschach been challenged but at least one court had issues with its scientific validity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, I wonder do you know tne details of why that one successful challenge out of 7,934 cases in Reid et al (1997) was successful? Was that on empirical psychometric test validity grounds, or was it for other reasons, for example on technical grounds of maladministration? And I don't believe that Faustian is necessarily "spouting OR nonsense". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, one of your cases is from 30 years ago whent he ROrschach was generally used quite differently. The last case cited seems to have involved employment testing which few people would claim the Rorschach ought to be used for. The MMPI was also deemed inapropriate there. The article is just a claim by Lillenfeld, Woods' colleague who is one of the small minority of psychologists who are really against the Rorschach. Try again.Faustian (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "the small minority of psychologists who are really against the Rorschach" ROTFL... Even the most serious proponents of the test admit that "Current literature reflects a persistent inclination in some quarters to denigrate the Rorschach Inkblot Method as an invalid and useless instrument for assessing personality functioning." --rtc (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the small minority are persistent. Notice that pretty much all the anti-Rorschach articles you cite have the name Woods and/or Lillenfeld in them. It's a small group of maybe 15-20 people (those two and their affiliates/grad students). I'm not including, of coure, Bruce's articles from 30-60 years ago. Also note that even the sma;; anti-Rorschach Woods group don't claim that the Rorschach is useless: .  Read the conclusion: "substantial evidence justifies the use of the Rorschach as a clinical measure of intelligence and thought disorder"  So your statements about the Rorschach being worthless are about as far in left field as the claim that people were sent to Earth by aliens. But, as I said before, thanks for offering your irrational belief that contradicts empirical evidence.Faustian (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I gave only one reference, and it was not to an article, but to an abstract. Second, you know exactly what I mean by useless. Of course the test might be useful as "a clinical measure of intelligence and thought disorder", but that's not what it's supposed to be used for or what it's actually used for in practice! I think you have understood exactly what I meant by "useless". Concluding that my statements are thus worthless, as proven by contradictory "evidence", is ridiculous. Your rhetorics does not help to make this pseudo-argument any better. I am inclined to agree, though, that belief is never rational; it is rational to suspend belief. --rtc (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a prime example of why a full reference rather than just a link should be provided. The actual reference is Weiner, I. B. (1996) "Some observations on the validity of the Rorschach Inkblot method" Psychological assessment vol. 8, no2, pp. 206-213 and using it would have prevented the "Woods and/or Lillenfeld" claim nonsense Faustian engaged in as it is clear the article wasn't written by either of them.  Besides Faustian claimed "The Rorschach has never been challenged in any court on scientific grounds." Never means 'never so it doesn't matter how long ago the court case was Faustian was still saying something that was OR and turned out to be FALSE.  The same is true of Rtc's refrerence--it wasn't written by either Woods and/or Lillenfeld as Faustian claimed. These kind of antics stretch the WP:AGF requirement to the breaking point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the article you reference, Weiner, I. B. (1996) "Some observations on the validity of the Rorschach Inkblot method" Psychological assessment vol. 8, no2, pp. 206-213, doesn't contradict what I've been saying, don't you? I should have been clearer about my statement though - the Rorchach as used in the past 20 years hasn't been challenged by any court on scientific grounds. Please find an anti-Rorschach article from a peer-reviewed journal written in the last 10 years that isn't written by Lillenfeld, Woods or their small group of associates. Good luck.Faustian (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing is stopping you from filing your own civility reports. Chillum  13:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out your hypocrisy.Faustian (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please Faustian, try not to make this personal. I simply hold a contrary view, I can find things dubious, I am not responsible for guarding you as you are perfectly capable of filing reports yourself. It is not as though I am trying to put my opinion in the article, I am simply stating it. Lets stick to the issues and not talk about each other. Chillum  15:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have added a few more refs on usage. The 80% is based on a small survey.  Other surveys found usage as low as 20% among psychologists.  Usage by the rest of the health care team ( psychiatrists / nurses / social workers ) is of course none.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More than one survey indicated 80%. The 20% was limited to corrections psychologists (in the prison system). And what does the "usage by the rest of the health care team"  prove?  Social workers don't prescribe meds - does that imply that meds aren't useful? Let's avoid demagoguery here.Faustian (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that sources disagree on the 80% number, perhaps I was correct in being dubious? Chillum  21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Read more carefully. None of the sources disagree with the 80% figure.  The other ones are looking at different people. 80% of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services use the Rorschach. 20% of psychologists working in prisons use it. I'm sure that 0% of psychologists who only work with rats in mazes or pigeons in skinner boxes use it.  So?Faustian (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what's the valid criterion for "is a popular or widely used test"? If it's less popular does that mean it deserve less wikipedia space? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no criterion, such wording should never be used at all in wikipedia articles, see WP:PEACOCK. --rtc (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So why the discussion over 80%? Just to discredit Faustian? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it would discredit Faustian if the number were much less than 80%? The number might be 80%, but it's not really relevant to this discussion (although pretty scary, as I already said... Most majority views are wrong, after all, but in rather rare cases with such severe consequences as with the rorschach test.) --rtc (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I may want to quote you on your "most majorty views are wrong", Rtc. Too bad no-one can ever prove anything (ever, or just here?). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a simple fact of basic logic that it is impossible to ever prove anything. I don't see, though, what should be "too bad" about this and how it is related to my argument. --rtc (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of discrediting one editor or another but if NPOV is served and there is any OR and/or WP:SYN going on. The actual surveys referenced by Weiner are Camara, Wayne J.; Nathan, Julie S.; Puente, Anthony E.  "Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology"  Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Vol 31(2), 141-154. and Viglione, D. J., & Hilsenroth, M. (2001). The Rorschach: Facts, fiction, and future. Psychological Assessment, 13, 452-471. and of those two the second is clearly closer to the topic at hand.  However if there are discrepancies between surveys it should be mentioned.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is, I feel, a big problem with this whole debate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was initially about the 10 cards appearing on wikipedia? Doc James and Llj and others did not,at least initially, make the claim they were doing so because it was "pseudoscience" or because of claims of invalidity, but because they felt the world wanted the information. Now, weeks later, after mental health professionals (and their organizations) have expressed some concerns - many of these same people's arguments to continue showing the cards (or placing other tests on here) or disseminate information concern their "belief" that these tests represent "pseudoscience." Which one is it guys? Was that the agenda all along, veiled in the "the world is curious" argument? Because it seems to me that their is a lot of hostility here against those whose ideas and beliefs do not correspond to your own. For example, I would never go to a medical topic and tell a heart surgeon that their practice methodology is flawed because of x, y, or z. It is far out of my realm of knowledge and I recognize that. Yet, we have Larry, Moe, and Curly here telling us that what we do and how we do it is "wrong" and "pseudoscience." It seems that since the natural order of events occurred after the cards were posted - i.e., psychologists and mental health professionals understandably coming to express their opposing view point - that the attempts to suppress have not been made by the psychologists (have you seen anyone actually attempt to remove the images, for example), but by those who seem not to fully appreciate (or have failed to listen) to the thoughts expressed by them. Rather than engaging in substantive debate, it appears, at least on the surface of things, that wholesale statements are being made without reasoning (see some of the completely dismissive, yet completely uninformed statements above). And the suppression I'm speaking concern what at least appears to be attempts to get psychologists/psychiatrists/mental health professional to stop expressing their views at all and leave this whole forum. I mean, why would any of these professionals want to contribute to an entry in an environment in which the activists are stating that their tests are invalid and "pseudoscience." That is neither constructive, nor remotely resembling the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite so, and If it's so important... at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images seems a typical and most recent example of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As well as the calls for the retaliatory banning or topic-banning of "disruptive" editors who have simply expressed opinions contrary to the clueless but vocal majority, and who have said over and over again that we want to make the article more informative and accurate. Takamine, I think you've hit the nail on the head, although I've been rather carefully refraining from making psychologically-based hypotheses here.  I don't think that all of the folks are hostile to psychology/psychologists, but there has been a lot of veiled and not-so-veiled hostility expressed -- if anything, that is what feels like the "consensus."  At this point, I'm not so sure that the only reason I should continue to stick around on WikiProject:Psychology (to edit non-test pages) is just so that no one could say that I didn't try to make a useful contribution where the bullies decided they were willing to let me in. Certainly, this whole experience has left me with much less respect for Wikipedia as a process and a community. Mirafra (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not that the editors "expressed opinions contrary to the clueless but vocal majority" (sic) but that there was a lot of WP:SYN, OR, and WP:NPOV stuff going on with to little WP:RS to back it up.


 * The Pseudo-scientific statement actually has some WP:RS behind it: Drenth, Pieter J.D. "Growing Anti-intellectualism in Europe: A Menace to Science" part of the ALLEA (All European Academies) Annual Report 2003. Drenth  states the Rorschach test is "just as ludicrous" as "Szonditest, Koch’s Baumtest, the Pfister colour pyramid test, Lüsher’s Colour test, frenology [...] incidental trials, one-day flies, or eccentric beliefs outside the mainstream (e.g. Penn colour system, naildiagnostics or the Figure Preference Test)" [...] "Time will not permit me to demonstrate the unscientific basis of these tests and projective techniques, and the reader has to be referred to the critical literature on these instruments (Jackson & Messick, 1967; Drenth & Sijtsma, 1990). But I may bring to the fore graphology as a prototype of the pseudo-scientific diagnostic methodology."


 * So the statement the Rorschach test as it is sometimes used is Pseudoscientific is not based out of personal views but from a report presented to an organization that "strives for excellence in science and scholarship, high ethical standards and independence from political, commercial and ideological interests." (ALLEA well within WP:RS requirements.


 * The thing is any time the name Woods and/or Lillenfeld come up some of these editors going into claims that have WP:SYN, OR, and/or WP:NPOV issues. It doesn't matter that Woods or Lillenfeld have had their statements published in peer reviewed journals or that the News division of an organization that publishes journals on Psychology stated on July 30, 2009 "Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published an exhaustive review of all data on the Rorschach (and other similar "projective" tests) in 2000. Such meta-analyses are major undertakings, so although this report is a few years old, it remains the most definitive word on the Rorschach." all of which fit WP:RS but that their views regarding Rorschach test are "threaten" and these threats must be "neutralized" even if Wikipedia's three pillars (Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view) might get kicked in the shins a few times.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Drenth based his conclusion on two studies that were 42 (!) and 17 years old. What net, describe medicine as pseudoscience because leeches were once widely used? As I said, the critics of the Rorschach consist of a small minority of experts clustered around Lillenfeld and Wood. And even this group doesn't go so far as to consider the test worthless. It may shock you Bruce but Wood et al didn't publish the only metanalysis of the Rorschach, and their meta-analysis was criticized for only including studies that supported their POV.Faustian (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given similar claimed were used to try to discredit the studies that showed homeopathy was no better placebos I think you will understand my skepticism regarding the claims in those articles . It smacks of the nonsense seen in the comments on the youtube video James Randi, "Head-On" and Homeopathy where articles out of The Lancet, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology were used in support of what amounts to psudoscientific garbage. But the real kicker is that on July 15, 1998 Journal of the American Medical Association published an article supporting this nonsense and Miller, Henry I. and Bruce B. Dan, "Homeopathic Medicine Is Homeo-Pathetic: Forbes Aug 11, 2009 revealed the AMA allows courses on homeopathy to be used for Continuing Medical Education credits.  What is next credits for courses in Astrology healing?!?  When even the AMA engages in utter unscientific insanity like that you have to ask just what other unscientific insanity is going on elsewhere.
 * Strangely the word Rorschach only appears once in Dunn, Dana S., Jane S. Halonen, Randolph A. Smith (2008) Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology: A Handbook of Best Practices Wiley-Blackwell--in a reference to Wood's 2003 book "What's Wrong with the Rorschach?" on page 13.
 * Wright, Rogers H., Nicholas A. Cummings (2005) Destructive trends in mental health Routledge pg 193-196 "The problems posed by the paucity of scientific training in numerous clinical PH. D and Psy.D programs have been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Dawes, 1994, Groove, 2000, Lilinfeld et al, 2003, Wright & Cummings, 2000) and are not reiterated in detail here."--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So part of your evidence about the prob lem with the Rorschach is a youtube video defending homeopathy? Thanks for confirming yet again that all the recent bad stuff written about the Rorschach comes back to Lillenfeld and Wood. Incidentally, if you're going to make an a nalogy to homeopathy, you'd better do so with Lillenfeld and Wood's work.  Both are minority viewpoints within their repsective fields.Faustian (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You totally missed the point. Here are the pro-Homoeopathy articles refereed to in the comments:


 * K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the﻿ Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843


 * Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323


 * Archives of Family Medicine, 1998, 7, 537-40


 * Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61, 12:1197-1204. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015


 * Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 17, September 27, 1999


 * Also if you had paided attention you would know just because it is on youtube doesn't mean it is garbage--CBS news is on youtube and so is Fox News and BBC News.  The New York Time states that 200 news outlets have signed on to YouTube (Stelter, Brian "Now on YouTube, Local News" New York Times August 2, 2009) so the old knee jerk reaction of youtube is useless is gone and even the don't know where it comes from stuff can have good reference material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have all along stated that there are many reasons for inclusion of this information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some other cases where Rorschach didn't quite past muster: State v. Rimmasch (1989), R.J.D. v. State (1990) ("While courts must afford some deference to trained experts they are not required to surrender reason at the altar of expertise"), and State v. Alberico (1991). I should remind people that courts are very conservative; it took over over 50 years for  Plessy v. Ferguson's separate but equal ruling (1896) to be struck down in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) so the acceptance of it by courts doesn't mean much especially when the Frye standard (1923) kept polygraphs out of courts but the Daubert case let them back in.  If courts are willing to allow the polygraph test despite its 30% failure rate (Roberts, Larry S. (1999) "Presidential Address: The Cure for All Diseases" The Journal of Parasitology, Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 996-999) then that is allowed in court hardly a point in favor of Rorschach.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some useful cases, Bruce. But to my mind the argument that "the law courts can't be trusted on test use beacause they are too conservative" sounds a bit too much like to the argument we've just seen above that "APA can't be trusted on ethics because they were complicit in torture". Shouldn't the Rorschach cases stand (or fall) on their own merits alone? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You missed the point I was making about the conservatism of the courts. The point was once the courts take a stand on something it generally takes a long time to change their minds even if the scientific evidence is against them.  For example, many elements of Buck v. Bell (1927) were held to be valid in Stump v. Sparkman (1978) and Poe v. Lynchburg Training School and Hospital (1981) but the Sterilization Act (1924) itself was not declared unconstitutional (it was appealed in 1979 by Congress) despite the fact the science of Victorian eugenics it had been based on had long been discredited.  I should mention psychologist Henry H. Goddard (The Kallikak Family was part of driving force behind things like the Sterilization Act.


 * Another example is creationism vs evolution. Even in 1926 there was more than enough evidence to show that the charges against Scopes were pseudoscientific garbage (as well as the trial itself being a kangaroo farce) but it would not be until 1968 with Epperson v. Arkansas that the courts finally got a clue.


 * Back to the Rorschach test itself--the real problem is not that the Rorschach test itself is pseudoscientific but many of the uses it is being put to are questionable. Add in the fact that courts are using a method is a documented failure rate of some 30%, saying that Rorschach is also use doesn't mean much. A survey of American Board of Forensic Psychology professionals has 53% saying the Rorschach was "unsuitable" for CST evaluations ("No competent assessment psychologist, however, use the Rorschach test, or presumable any other clinical instrument, as a sole basis for determining competency to stand trail.") Gacono, Carl B., F. Barton Evans (2007) "The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Assessment" pg 147


 * This book also points out US v Battle (2001) where it was ruled the Rorschash does NOT have an objective scoring system, State ex rel H.H. (1999) where under cross examination Dr. Bogacki stated under oath "many psychologists do not believe much in the validity or effectiveness of the Rorschach test", and Jones v Apfel (1997) where it was ruled Rorschash "results do not meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and interpretation thus is often controversial" and that was a quotation from Attorney's Textbook of Medicine. So things are not the happy rosy picture Faustian is trying to paint and in fact some US courts regard Rorschash in very poor light.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce, you seem to have collected a lot of very interesting information here regarding the legal position of the Rorschach in the US, well done. I would suggest that some of this might usefully be added to he article itself, perhaps in a new section?.What do other editors think - would we be getting a bit too close to WP:OR? Do these cases, however, directly impinge on the topic of this thread, i.e. prior esposure? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it was Gacono who did the collecting but it does touch on NPOV issues. The first chapter of A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary By Esther Strauss, Elisabeth M. S. Sherman, Otfried Spreen (2007) goes over this issue and shows that even with objective, standardized, reliable and valid tests the effects of prior exposure is very complex--different groups can be effected to different levels and some not at all.  But the above cases show that some courts consider the Rorschach NOT to be objective, standardized, reliable and-or valid.


 * The few studies on prior exposure involving Rorschach in particular I initially found were very old: Schachtel, E. G. (1945)  "Subjective definitions of the Rorschach test situation and their effect on test performance. Contributions to an understanding of Rorschach's test, III."  Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes Vol 8, 419-448 and Lord,  Edith (1950)  "Experimentally induced variations in Rorschach performance" Psychological monographs: general and applied v. 64, no. 10, whole no. 316 American Psychological Association (Washington).  Then you have the more modern stuff like Bruce L. Smith ("The End of the World As We Know It (and I Feel Fine): Comment on Erard") who in his rebuttal gives regarding Robert E. Erard's "Release of Test Data Under the 2002 Ethics Code and the HIPAA Privacy Rule: A Raw Deal or Just a Half-Baked Idea?" in the same 2004 issue of Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 82 Issue 1 admits "Erard cites an impressive body of literature that suggests that major tests are not significantly invalidated by prior exposure."  So even the APA's basic claim of test exposure causes harm has been challenged by "an impressive body of literature" and Smith can at best can only say harm may occur--hardly a good situation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Yes, both Schachtel and Lord do seem a bit old now - although if the same scoring system was used I don't see why their findings might not still apply. I will try and get hold of JPA 82 (1). But how does Smith actually rebut Erard? Presumably not with the quote you have selected? I wonder does he present any counter-evidence? How I wish someone like Ward3001 was still here - I think he might have some useful comments on these papers. Thanks anyway, Bruce. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is the Rorschach of Schachtel and Lord could NOT have used the same scoring system as the Exner scoring system wasn't even invented until long after they wrote their papers and wasn't put out until 1969. Dawes, Robyn M. (1991) "Giving up Cherished Ideas: The Rorschach Ink Blot Test" Institute for Psychological Therapies Journal Volume 3, Number 4 sites various editions of the Mental Measurement Yearbook with Rorschach being challenged in 1949, 1959 where Lee Cronbach "the world's leading expert on psychological testing" was highly critical of it, 1965, and in 1978.  In 1986 Atkinson was addressing issues raised back in 1977 in his "Rorschach validity: An empirical approach to the literature" Journal of Clinical Psychology Volume 42 Issue 2, Pages 360 - 362 paper.  Garb, HN; CM Florio, WM Grove (1998) "The validity of the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: The validity of the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory" Psychological Science felt that Rorschach was far less usefull than the MMPI.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, you are a wealth of useful information. And now at last, thanks to you, this Talk Page is becoming again more worthy of its name. Yes, absolutely, I think we must discount both Schachtel and Lord. Cronbach, as any psychology undergraduate ought to know, is certainly a name to be reckoned with. But let's not lose sight of the topic here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In 2001 Bornstein published "Clinical Utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method: Reframing the Debate" Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 77, Issue 1, pages 39 - 47 as a plea to go back to basics: "(a) recognize what the test can and cannot do; (b) choose appropriate outcome criteria to assess RIM effectiveness; (c) use multimethod, multicriterion matrices to place results in an appropriate context; (d) consider limitations in the outcome criteria themselves; and (e) use experimental-not just correlational-data to contrast the results obtained with projective and self-report tests." (abstract). Oh Cronbach's comment was as follows: "The test has repeatedly failed as a prediction of practical criteria.  There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations."  Of course that was on the Rorschach of 1965. According to Wood Cronbach's view on the Rorschach of 1970 (Essential of psychological testing‎) was less harsh with some Rorschach scores having “validity greater than chance”.
 * The end result is the literature on Rorschach is a mess with even the abstracts on some papers making less sense then Star Trek technobable and no clear consensus in sight. It is sort of a mirror image of the mess the Christ myth theory article is in but instead of too little scholarly and peer reviewed material we have too much.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How I'm wondering WHICH scores Cronbach was alluding to! Well, that's a mirror image I had not expected. Am still pinning my hopes on Erard vs Smith for my own personal progression of this thread. But it will take me at least a week to get via my local library. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the Rorschach (whatever the scoring system used) functions more in the role of a structured interview when used by experienced clinicans than a test with psychometric properties.  &mdash; mattisse  (Talk) 15:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a layman, I cannot disagree with that synopsis, Mattisse. The Rorshcach is, after all, often described, even by its users, as a technique or a process rather than a test - there might even be a question mark over the title of this article? I certainly think that the properties will be different to those of other conventional psychometrics. Surely, this will be true of all projective tests? But I remain convinced that the general APA statement is meant to cover all test or "psychological assessment" materials. Similarly with the CPA and BPS statements. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)