Stephen:
While I have no great love (at all) for the Rorschach, your response left
me wondering whether you'd have had the same reaction had the individual in
question published an instrument you would see as having established
reliability, validity, research support, etc. (I hesitate to name specific
instruments, like the MMPI or MCMI, as there is always debate over what is
"sufficient" reliability and validity).
In addition, if you've looked at the web site, you might have a different
point of view of the author of this "guide." A noble assault on
pseudoscience hardly seems like the main goal.
(And besides, he trashes ALL psychologists, not just those who use the
Rorschach).
Just a few random (perhaps projected) thoughts,
David
At 10:05 AM 7/18/00 -0400, Stephen Black wrote:
>> At 12:32 PM 7/17/00 -0400, Michael J. Kane wrote:
>> >
>> >Those of you who teach (and/or do) assessment might be
>> >interested to see the following website, "Fathers Rights to
>> >Custody," and their instructions about how to "beat" the
>> >Rorschach test:
>> >
>> >www.deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.htm
>
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, David Wasieleski, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> Michael:
>> I had gotten this site from another listserv, and I use it in my ethics
>> class. It is also used in the personality assessment course to discuss
>> testing issues, validity, etc. But it's a bit of a disturbing thing to see
>> in a public forum like the web.
>
>The ethical issue seems obvious. We have a test whose
>effectiveness to help decide an important legal and social issue
>is impaired by the unauthorized release of information concerning
>how to respond to it. Of course it's unethical.
>
>Or is it? What's left out here is the fact that the Rorschach is
>a nonsensical test based on an absurd theory without a shred of
>evidence to support its use. Yet it enjoys undeserved prestige in
>clinical psychology, psychiatry, the law, and in society
>generally. Thus even though "diagnoses" based on it are utterly
>meaningless and may result in great harm to those so diagnosed,
>its use continues and may be a significant influence in court
>cases. Now that's unethical!
>
>Under the circumstances, I'd say that this web site which tells
>how one may protect oneself against such harmful nonsense is not
>only ethical, but its developers are to be congratulated for
>their contribution to the fight against pseudoscience.
>
>-Stephen
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
>Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
>Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Lennoxville, QC
>J1M 1Z7
>Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
> Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
> http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
David Wasieleski, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology and Counseling
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
912-333-5620
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dtwasieleski
"Then comes the day
Staring at myself I turn to question me
I wonder do I want the simple, simple life that I once lived in well
Oh things were quiet then
In a way they were the better days
But now I am the proudest monkey you've ever seen..."
--Dave Matthews Band
"Proudest Monkey"
