What You Look Like After a Test Funny

June 17, 2022 Post a Comment

More by Parade

40 Bursting With Sweetness Blueberry Desserts You'll Never Grow Tired Of
Get Ready! We Finally Know When Amazon Prime Day 2022 is Happening!
52 Hearty Chili Recipes You'll Want to Bookmark for Year-Round Satisfaction

(Courtesy of The Inkblot Pack)

What do you see above? The answer could say a lot about you. This is one of Hermann Rorschach's famous inkblot psychological tests, which are featured in the new book/journal combo, The Inkblot Pack.

Created in 1921, the test involves showing a card with an abstract inkblot on it, like the one above, and asking the person what it looks like to them. "The basic idea of this is that when a person is shown an ambiguous, meaningless image … the mind will work hard at imposing meaning on the image," the BBC writes. "By asking the person to tell you what they see in the inkblot, they are actually telling you about themselves, and how they project meaning on to the real world."

The test's inkblots were first made public more than 30 years ago, according to the Scientific American. But now, though the test was once popular, many psychologists consider it controversial and unreliable—two psychiatrists administering the test to the same patient could easily interpret the person's responses differently, it's been argued. Still, the test has worked its way into pop culture, with appearances in Armageddon, Batman Forever, and the Golden Girls.

So tell us what you see in the inkblot above in the comments. And if you're curious about Rorschach's original thoughts about the test, read the excerpt below from his 1921 book, Psychodiagnostik, courtesy of The Inkblot Pack.

The Method

1. Apparatus

The experiment consists in the interpretation of accidental forms, that is, of non-specific forms. A reproduction of the figures in their present form is issued as a supplement to this book and should serve not only for illustration but as available apparatus.

The production of such accidental forms is very simple: a few large ink blots are thrown on a piece of paper, the paper folded, and the ink spread between the two halves of the sheet. Not all figures so obtained can be used, for those used must fulfill certain conditions. In the first place, the forms must be relatively simple; complicated pictures make the computations of the factors of the experiment too difficult. Furthermore, the distribution of the blots on the plate must fulfill certain requirements of composition or they will not be suggestive, with the result that many subjects will reject them as "simply an ink-blot" without consideration of other possible interpretations.

Every figure in the series has to fulfill certain special requirements as well as these general ones, and each, as well as any whole series, must be thoroughly tried out before it can be used as apparatus for the test. The construction of a suitable series of ten figures is not so simple as might appear at first glance.

From the method of preparation it will be apparent that the figures will be symmetrical, with very little difference between the two halves. Asymmetrical figures are rejected by many subjects; symmetry supplies part of the necessary artistic composition.

It has a disadvantage in that it tends to make the answers somewhat stereotyped. On the other hand, symmetry makes conditions the same for right and left-handed subjects; furthermore, it facilitates interpretation in certain inhibited and blocked subjects. Finally, symmetry makes possible the interpretation of whole scenes.

Figures which are asymmetrical and show poor composition could add new factors to the results of the experiment but would require testing on normal control groups. But the problem cannot be further discussed here. The examination of individual sensibility to composition is a problem in itself.

The order of the plates within the series is determined by empirical results.

2. Procedure

The subject is given one plate after the other and asked, "What might this be?" He holds the plate in his hand and may turn it about as much as he likes. The subject is free to hold the plate near his eyes or far away as he chooses; however, it should not be viewed from a distance. The length of the extended arm is the maximum permissible distance.

Care must be taken that the subject does not catch a glimpse of the plate from a distance, since this would alter the conditions of the experiment. For instance, Plate I is frequently interpreted "the head of a fox" when seen at a distance of several meters; at a closer range this answer is almost never given. Once the subject has interpreted the plate as the head of a fox it becomes very difficult for him to see anything else when it is brought nearer.

An attempt is made to get at least one answer to every plate, though suggestion in any form is, of course, avoided. Answers are taken down as long as they are produced by the subject. It has proved unwise to set a fixed time for exposure of the card. Coercion should be avoided as much as possible.

Occasionally it becomes necessary to show a suspicious subject how the figures are prepared, ad oculos. In general, however, rejection of the test is relatively rare, even among suspicious and inhibited patients.

3. Interpretation of the Figures as Perception

Almost all subjects regard the experiment as a test of imagination. This conception is so general that it becomes, practically, a condition of the experiment. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the figures actually has little to do with imagination, and it is unnecessary to consider imagination a prerequisite. It is true, however, that those gifted with imagination react differently from those not so gifted. On the other hand, it makes little difference whether one encourages the subject to give free rein to his imagination or not; the results will be little changed. Those who have imagination show it, those who do not have it may apologize for the lack, but the results may be compared without taking richness or poverty of imagination into account.