Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA21754 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:11:46 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CA4@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: What's in an Inkblot? Some Say, Not Much Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:11:15 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>>On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:39:42AM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >> All I ever see is nasty monsters or pretty butterflies...
>
<But do you think what you see might reflect your state of mind at
> the time?>
>
I don't know. I was being flippant.
I've never taken a test formally or properly, only seen them in
various media contexts (e.g. the sponsor's ads for 'Fraiser'- I don't even
know if these are genuine). I think they do reveal something about one's
state of mind of way of thining, but obliquely. For example, the blots are
symmetrical right? That makes me instantly think of that piece of art I did
as a small child at school where you paint one butterfly wing on one side of
the paper and then fold it over, making a complete butterfly. Seeing
Rorscharch test always make me think of that, and then I can't see anything
other than butterflies, or insects if there are pointy bits (legs or
antennae, you see).
I don't believe they reveal anything deeply, but as you know I'm no
psychologist so I don't have any professional basis for that view.
What interests me is how one determines what responses are 'correct'
for a symmetrical blob of ink on white. If most people see a cuddly bunny,
and someone else sees a dead dog, does that make that person mentally ill?
I don't get it.
I assume research has been done on the experimenter effect here,
after all asking people what they see implicitly tells them there's
something to be seen- what if you see nothing but an inkblot? How many
people pretend to see things, and are there procedures to account for that?
I assume so, but it just seems a method rife with potential problems to me.
I have the same kind of personal hangup over brain scan experiments
where they use photos to supposedly scare, disgust, or frighten people, and
use a mixture of photos that are either supposed to illicit or not illicit
certain responses.
Doesn't mean their not valid methods though....
Vincent
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 22 2001 - 12:14:01 GMT