Have you ever looked at the clouds and seen images? Well, there is a test called the Rorschach that uses a series of inkblots the reveal information about a person. The Rorschach has been around for a long time and, many people are for it while a lot are against it. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the Rorschach test. The article by Erica Goode, “What’s in an Inkblot? Some say Not Much,” is an article that reveals the controversy surrounding the Rorschach test, a test to reveal one’s personalities. There are many pros and cons about the use of the Rorschach test.
There are many pros for using the Rorschach. A pro for the Rorschach is that is that it can be used to see information that some people might not reveal about themselves.
…show more content…
Yet almost since its creation, the inkblot test has also been controversial, with early critics calling it "cultish" and later ones deeming it "scientifically useless." (Goode 4). One con of the Rorschach test is that it is not accurate enough for major situations.” While the Rorschach and the other projective techniques may be valuable in certain specific situations, the reviewers argue, the tests' ability to diagnose mental illnesses, assess personality characteristics, predict behavior or uncover sexual abuse or other trauma is very limited.” (Goode 11). This shows that even though it may be valuable in certain situations, some argue it is not as valuable in important situations. Another con of using the Rorschach is that it is very time consuming. The tests, which often take hours to score and interpret, add little information beyond what can be gleaned from far less time¬ consuming assessments, the psychologists say. (Goode 12.) This shows that the Rorschach takes too much time to interpret and is not revealing enough information about a person. This shows that there are also many people against continuing the Rorschach testing. There are many cons of the use of Rorschach
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
In Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box, the second chapter “Obscura” discusses Stanley Milgram, one of the most influential social psychologists. Milgram created an experiment which would show just how far one would go when obeying instructions from an authoritative figure, even if it meant harming another person while doing so. The purpose of this experiment was to find justifications for what the Nazi’s did during the Holocaust. However, the experiment showed much more than the sociological reasoning behind the acts of genocide. It showed just how much we humans are capable of.
The Milgram experiment of the 1960s was designed to ascertain why so many Germans decided to support the Nazi cause. It sought to determine if people would be willing to contradict their conscience if they were commanded to do so by someone in authority. This was done with a psychologist commanding a teacher to administer an electric shock to a student each time a question was answered incorrectly. The results of the Milgram experiment help to explain why so many men in Nazi Germany were recruited to support the Nazi cause and serve as a warning against the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques by the United States government.
The results Tyler received from the Rorschach Inkblot Test explain him fairly well, with just a few surprises here and there. The first personality trait Tyler expressed in his test was imagination. He has the ability to see animals or other objects moving proving he has a brain for imagination. A fine example of this is in picture #2 when his response was a lizard walking through a puddle. His responses also indicate that he shows emotion toward others as well as about others or things. The test shows his emotion because he used color to explain what he saw. The color affected his thoughts and made the images seem clearer of what they exactly were. Tyler gave a few negative responses, or in other words violent responses. An example of this
Utility of assessment. Why are these types of personality assessments useful? Did you find the results useful? Why or why not?
Rorschach uses psychology to intimidate and scare anyone he thinks is evil because his fight is with anyone who preys on the innocent. Rorschach’s mask has significant importance to his character and the representation of science portrayed through him. Before he became Rorschach he was Walter Kovacs. Like most Watchmen he has no special powers. Most of them are extremely skilled at fighting with whatever they can find and have trained their entire lives to be in peak human condition. Rorschach uses his connection to psychology to help him outsmart criminals and protect himself. His mask is one of the ways he intimidates criminals. The blank face is known in comic books as a way to seem disturbing or even not human, but even though Rorschach
In Stephen Jay Gould’s essay, “Some close encounters of a mental kind,” Gould discussed about how certainty can be both blessing and dangerous. According to Gould, certainty can be blessing because it can provide warmth, comfort and secure. However, it can also be a danger because it can trick our mind with false information of what we see and remember in our mind. Gould also talked about the three levels of possible error in direct visual observation: misperception, retention and retrieval. According to Gould, our human mind is the greatest miracle of nature and the wicked of all frauds and tricksters mixed. To support his argument and statements, he used an example of an experiment that Elizabeth Loftus, a professor from University of California Irvine, did to her students and a personal experience of his childhood trip to the Devils Tower. I agree with Gould that sight and memory do not provide certainty because what we remember is not always true, our mind can be tricky and trick us into believing what we see/hear is real due to the three potential error of visual observation. Certainty is unreliable and tricky.
Zajac, R. & Hayne H. (2003). I don’t think that’s what really happened: The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children’s repots. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 187-195.
It may seem ridiculous that we make decisions based on thoughts that we do not even know we are having, but it is certainly true. This test has really opened my eyes to the fact that although I considered myself very open-minded, even I have a slight bias in some regards. The most important lesson from this is that awareness is the key, and these biases will forever be engrained in our subconscious if we do not take the time to face them. Although I found this a tough pill to swallow, I and the people I meet henceforth will benefit from the knowledge I have gained
Which personality assessment would you recommend for use by employers? Choose from the Rorschach Test, the TAT, the MMPI, and the MBTI inventory. Be sure to include why this assessment is a better fit than the other assessments described in the lesson.
Phrenology was controversial for a couple reasons. One reason was the criticism from Pierre Flourens who used the ablation method and his findings were contradictory to phrenologists. Another controversial reason, according to the reading was that the selection of the different “faculties” was totally random. Trying to explain human differences in intelligence and personality by a restricted number of those faculties was not a valid method.
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Personality tests tell a person a lot about why a person is who they have become. I believe that these test if taken truthfully can identify deficiencies that individuals can work on to benefit not only themselves but others in the organizations that they work in. Some models state that it is in human nature and chemicals that decided how a person acts but I believe it is based on life experiences and a personality can change as long as a person knows the deficiencies and works to change them.
... and many more and these factors may influence the results obtained. Third, if an individual does not take the test seriously or does not take enough time to read and respond thoughtfully and sincerely to each statement, there results again may end up being inaccurate.
Taking any type of personality test can lead to a lot of thought and reflection on yourself,