My friend, Patty Kowalski and I are doing an MBTI is a barnum effect study this fall----maybe----if we can find a good reason to want to show that.
Any ideas for literature we might not have found with a standard lit search to help us make the case? Editors want a coherent theoretical reason for the study...... A Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 tay...@sandiego.edu ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:36:52 -0400 >From: drna...@aol.com >Subject: Re: [tips] Wikipedia despoils the Rorschach >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> > > My first guess would NOT be that Silverman > was demonstrating the amazing accuracy of the > Rorschach, but rather that his interpretations were > just "Barnum" enough to be related to the MMPI > (which I am not all that impressed with, either) and > seem to confirm it. > > All personality tests are marginal, because > personality (apart from context or situation) is a > somewhat flimsy construct. > > Nancy Melucci > Long Beach City College > Long Beach CA > > Afterwards, > one of my more open-minded colleagues took me aside and informed me of a > challenge that had been put out by Lloyd Silverman (RIP, 1986), a > psychoanalyst > in NYC. Silverman offered to read the Rorschach protocols of any client of any > doubting physician and return an interpretation of the test that would be the > virtual equivalent of the empirically derived MMPI results of the same client > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Scott <wsc...@wooster.edu> > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> > Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 7:04 am > Subject: Re: [tips] Wikipedia despoils the Rorschach > > Despoilers of the Rorschach have been on the internet for many years. E.g. > > http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.php > > These folks didn't originally have all the disclaimers at the beginning of > their > site that they now have. > > While I fully agree with Stephen about the demonstrated lack of validity of > the > Rorschach, and I have been vocal about that opinion for decades, I must tell > the > following story which gives me pause. > > In the early 1980's I gave a tirade against the Rorschach something like > Stephen's in a clinical case conference in a large hospital setting populated > by > a fairly large number of psychodynamically oriented practitioners. Afterwards, > one of my more open-minded colleagues took me aside and informed me of a > challenge that had been put out by Lloyd Silverman (RIP, 1986), a > psychoanalyst > in NYC. Silverman offered to read the Rorschach protocols of any client of any > doubting physician and return an interpretation of the test that would be the > virtual equivalent of the empirically derived MMPI results of the same client. > We simply had to pay Silverman for the interpretation (I think it was > something > like $300 at the time), but he would provide a "double your money back" > garauntee regarding its match to the MMPI (he was of course blind to the MMPI > data). We decided to give him the test and provided him with a Rorschach > protocol of a very complicated client who had a very complex set of > statements > that were generated by the MMPI. > > We didn't get our money back. Silverman's interpretation was very very similar > to the MMPI results and in fact his predictions regarding the course of > treatment for the client were better than those generated by the MMPI. > > Now, of course this is anecdotal, but it has tempered my thinking about the > meaning of statistical tests of reliability and validity, particularly in the > face of the objections that are made (particularly by supporters of tests like > the Rorschach), that it depends upon in whose hands the test resides. It has > also tempered my thinking about the results of the empirical tests of the > efficacy of certain therapies when the execution of the therapies is > handbook/template driven rather than executed by unrestrained artistic > virtuosos > of the type of therapy being examined. > > I know this kind of talk is the kind of maddening dismissals of science > expressed by people who divine for water and help the police with psychic > powers, but Silverman's performance impressed me. It is said that he never > (perhaps rarely) had to pay on his Rorschach challenge. > > Bill Scott > > > >>> <sbl...@ubishops.ca> 07/28/09 11:34 PM >>> > Big brouhaha over the posting of Rorschach plates plus common responses > to them on Wikipedia, the ethics of doing this, whether it ruins the > scientific usefulness of the test, makes them meaningless, etc. You can > read all about it in the New York Times at http://tinyurl.com/lblelt > ("Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet?"--Noam Cohen) > > But in all the anguish over this issue, no one seems to have asked "What > scientific usefulness?" Or "How can something that is already meaningless > be made more so by public disclosure? > > The fact is that the Rorschach is not science but pseudoscience and > please, don't tell me about the Exner system. Our clever former fellow > TIPSter, Scott Lilienfeld and his colleagues settled this back in 2000. > Their language was cautious, but the message was clear: this is not > science but junk. But unfortunately, pseudoscience never dies, and so the > Rorschach is with us still. And still causing more damage (e.g. in child > custody cases) than I'd care to contemplate. > > But no one who thinks psychology is a science should care a fig whether > its plates and responses are public or not. > > Stephen > > The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques > Psychological Science in the Public Interest > Volume 1, Issue 2, Date: November 2000, Pages: 27-66 > Scott O. Lilienfeld, James M. Wood, Howard N. Garb > > Free at http://tinyurl.com/l4cud5 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca > 2600 College St. > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada > > Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of > psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for > Back to School > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
