Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA13672 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 4 Feb 2002 13:48:27 GMT Subject: Re: Abstractism Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:42:32 -0500 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "memetics list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: <20020204134238.200E61FD49@camail.harvard.edu> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 02/03/02 23:37, Grant Callaghan said this-
>doctor was not trying to put a thought into their minds with the ink blots
>but to pull one out.
I think there are enough criticisms about the Rorschach and other tests
of its type that purport that there is indeed a 'doctor trying to put a
thought into their minds', and that the setting and the context are prime
movers of this criticism.
Intent and meaning are often obscured within each other. The montage
school of cinema is based upon the elicitation of certain emotions and
reactions from (possibly) unrelated, and by themselves meaningless,
But, yes, the most valid criticism of such tests is that, indeed, nothing
but the bias and pretensions of the doctor are being exposed.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 04 2002 - 13:57:06 GMT