Talk:Rorschach test

Too much technical detail for an encyclopedic format

Beyond the discussion around public domain and image issues (which have been discussed before here), I have to say I am a bit surprised by the decision to include all of the test inkblots in the article, along with frequent responses from three different theorists for each image, and commentary for all of them as well. Given that the goal of the article is to offer a broader, more encyclopedic overview, it’s hard to see the reason in presenting the material in such a detailed, almost instructional way. It almost feels less like a panoramic review and more like a step-by-step mini-guide. Tam01 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Tend to agree. The issues do greatly overlap. I believe the original APA concerns were particularly over the detailed interpretations, although mere pre-exposure to the images themselves was also a source of contention. I don't think the articles on other subjective projective tests insist on showing all of the test material. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

My two cents: The images are included in the article to say "I told you we could do it" by image proponents to those who opposed the images. And apart from the ethics of Wikipedians' blatantly destroying test validity by publishing the images, what those same Wikipedians don't seem to realize is that the "frequent responses" actually do harm to those who take the test. To the naive test-taker, giving the "frequent responses" when administered the test doesn't make the test-taker look psychologically healthy (as might be the motivation for a parent in a custody evaluation); it makes them look very pathological. All of this reflects a profound ignorance of how the test works and the vast amount of research underlying its interpretation. But as I said, that's my two cents, and I have no desire to fight a battle over the images or the listing of "frequent responses". And to the image zealots, relax. I have no intention to change anything regarding the images. You'll be wasting your time if you want to pick a fight with me about the science. I learned long ago that in some corners of Wikipedia, expertise has no meaning, even if the expert can point to the research backing his expert opinions. I'll simply ignore the comments that reflect utter ignorance and move on to more important matters. That's not a slam on Wikipedia in general, just this particular part of it. The quality of other aspects of Wikipedia, including most medical articles, is good. That's because the medical experts here worked together to create very beneficial guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS. Sundayclose (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ouch. What a very cynical and bitter analysis. But my exact argument in the RfC 16 years ago. And still now, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Given all this, how do we go from here? I'm not suggesting we remove all the inkblots or anything that drastic (as it will get reverted ASAP). But I do believe a measured reduction in that kind of detail would be a constructive next step. It might improve neutrality and better reflect how similar psychological tests are handled on Wikipedia. Curious to hear your thoughts.Tam01 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If any of the blot proponents are still around, making even a slight change on this matter could, and likely will, result in a bloodbath. It will get very ugly. You are certainly entitled to try to make changes, but I don't want any part of it. I'll quietly disappear. Sundayclose (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

And editors who are still watching this article and who still support inclusion of all the ink blots should comment in this thread with their arguments for keeping them. I suspect that some may comment with "where's the evidence of any harm from the APA (or BPS)?" But, as I think I tried to argue in the original RfD, this is the sort of evidence that is practically and ethically impossible to construct. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am more on the line of questioning how including all of the inkblots, along with such extensive commentary on their interpretation, aligns with an encyclopedic approach at all. It’s less about proving demonstrable harm (which, as noted, is nearly impossible to measure in this context) and more about asking whether the current presentation meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Tam01 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a perfectly valid argument and perhaps a stronger one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

For the moment, I have added Template:Excessive examples to the inkblots session. Will work on it later on. Tam01 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The inkblots are the test, they are not "examples" of some concept described in the article. The template therefore does not make any sense, thus I removed it. As for the excessive detail, a concise description of ten inkblots does not seem to me excessive at all; if anything, it seems quite right. But well, one can still think about splitting the description and make it more thorough in a separate article, if only that was the concern. I find it funny that y'all above are explicitly debating bad faith ways to sneak past consensus on the inkblot images. are candidly debating in the open what type of argument would stick to obtain the single end result of removing the images, judging how they might be weaker or stronger, to undermine a long standing consensus. edited --cyclopia^speak! 18:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC) --cyclopia^speak! 14:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I have edited here in perfectly good faith. Kindly amend or retract that accusation. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. It's 21 years I edit here, it's not like I am born yesterday. The discussion above is (admirably) clear: it is about reducing the amount of inkblots and/or information related directly to them. As acknowledged above, the harm arguments etc. have not been accepted by consensus so far, so it seems editors above are trying to find another rhetorical line that might stick with the same end result (removing at least some of the inkblots). This exchange in particular: "It’s less about proving demonstrable harm (which, as noted, is nearly impossible to measure in this context) and more about asking whether the current presentation meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards." "Yes, that seems a perfectly valid argument and perhaps a stronger one." - stronger with respect to what? why comparing the two arguments in strength if not about how they manage to obtain the same desired end result? cyclopia^speak! 17:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Kindly retract and/or strike your accusation or I will request Admin intervention. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to explain the comment exchange above. If there is a satisfactory explanation, I'll be glad to retract and apologize. cyclopia^speak! 18:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not interested in any "rhetorical line". My view is still that the images should not appear, with explanations, as they currently do, in this article. If this is not possible, the article should at least match other articles for psychological tests and simply show examples of the test materials. I believe the argument for consistency as stronger than the argument for preventing harm, as it is a boarder argument that applies across all of Wikipedia, and does not rely on the assessment of any external evidence. I do not regard expressing this logic as "explicitly debating bad faith ways to sneak past consensus". Again, kindly strike or retract your accusation. I am not requesting any apology. This is the third time I have now politely asked you. If you do not, I will report you at WP:AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I will amend the comment above. cyclopia^speak! 18:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "amendment" seems to have simply involved a re-write, with additional words, in very similar terms, which still ends with "to undermine a long standing consensus". That is not my understanding of how consensus works and how it should be respected. Oh, and you still "find it funny"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I am confused. I struck the bad faith accusation. I did it sincerely, since your comment indeed made me change my mind. This indicates that you actually believe, in good faith, that what you debated above is a reasonable way of conduct. Therefore I apologize for having written and thought you were in bad faith; I was wrong. Yes, I find what you stated above and reiterated in your explanation problematic and somehow amusing in its candor and good faith; I believe we should not throw arguments and evaluate them as strategies to obtain a given end result that would also, in this case, overthrow a long standing consensus (yes, I know that consensus can change; it's the strategy I find problematic). I do not believe this is a personal attack and again, I sincerely understand you are in good faith. cyclopia^speak! 19:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I think it might help matters here if we all try to avoid wild personal accusations and focus more on the content arguments. I don't see very much wrong with "candor and good faith." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and apologies. cyclopia^speak! 19:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, it is not constructive to always characterize general efforts to trim this article as bad faith, regardless of its history. My current goal is to align the content with Wikipedia’s intended scope as a general reference work. As I’ve noted before, parts of the article, particularly the section displaying all ten inkblots with multiple interpretations, read less like an encyclopedia and more like a clinical training manual. This level of detail exceeds what’s appropriate for a general audience and contradicts Wikipedia’s summary style. A more suitable approach would be to include a representative sample, perhaps one or two inkblots, alongside a broader overview of interpretive methods. That said, this gigantic article clearly does need work, both in terms of tone and structure. Tam01 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thus the confusion from decades ago returns. Each blot is, in fact, an example of a test item. The original MMPI had 567 items. If we wanted to include the entire MMPI we would list all 567 items. If we wanted examples we would list only a few. Rorschach has ten example items, all of which are now in the article. Note that I'm not stating a position about whether all items (i.e., blots) should be included, nor do I intend to endlessly and futily debate that point. I'm simply clarifying what an example of a test item is. In any event, three editors now support the template. It should not be removed without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

And I also find the false accusation of bad faith unacceptable. A major problem in the debates decades ago was the false accusations of bad faith which muddled the relevant issues about inclusion of the blots. I'll add my request that the false accusation be retracted and never be done again. An apology would also be appropriate, although I wouldn't bet a penny that it will actually be offered. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologize for the quite insulting sentence «The images are included in the article to say "I told you we could do it" by image proponents to those who opposed the images», and then I can begin to consider rethinking about my statements. cyclopia^speak! 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Including 567 items would be a bit too much. Including 10 items is quite balanced. In Solar System we discuss all the planets and other major items, but we don't list all minor planets, obviously. cyclopia^speak! 17:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

How is including 10 items "balanced", when those 10 items constitute the entire set of the test material? I really don't see much similarity between the Solar System and a subjective projective psychological test. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Balanced as in, it doesn't skew the article (including 567 items would make >90% of the article about the test items). Given that the items are few and can be comfortably included in a section, we can afford to cover all of them. cyclopia^speak! 18:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia rules on article size should determine whether a psychological test that has a smaller number of test items should be "wholly exposed" in an article. The article has more the appearance of a practioner's guide than a selective encyclopaedic summary. I don't see why the essential concept that ambiguous random ink blots can be interpreted differently by different people can't be adequately conveyed by showing just a few examples of the test items, rather than the entire test. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

No, there is no balance between including 10 percent of test items compared to 100 percent of test items. It's not balanced. It's overkill, to put it mildly. To my knowledge, there is no other article about a psychological test on Wikipedia that includes all test items. And that has nothing to do with copyright or ethics. It's about acceptable and poor writing style. Again, I'm not arguing about whether any or all test items should be included. I'm clarifying what exactly the words "balanced" and "example" mean to try to stem the rising confusion from discussions years ago. Sundayclose (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT; I am not going to check all articles about psychological tests, but most probably almost all such tests contain much more than 10 items. 10 items are a reasonable amount of material to include in full in an article; the threshold is very much subjective but let's say that if they were 15 or 20 I would find your argument much more reasonable. As it is now, the discussion of the blots in my opinion is not out of proportion given the size and breadth of the article. cyclopia^speak! 18:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Just for the sake of a counterexample, Sexual Compulsivity Scale contains all items; they are also ten. Not that it matters much, because such a decision depends on several contextual factors, but well, it's not like this article is a lone outlier. cyclopia^speak! 18:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "contextual factors" I don't see that particular psychometric scale as a subjective projective psychological test that requires expert interpretation. I was thinking more of something like the Blacky pictures test which currently has no examples. Perhaps that one is "an outlier"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thematic Apperception Test, another widely used projective test involving visual images, has no examples. Sundayclose (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh gosh. I wish I'd thought of that one (see below)... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I'll see if examples might be added. cyclopia^speak! 10:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The point is, it is not very helpful to look at other articles for guidance, especially in this case. Very few other psychological tests are like the Rorschach, AFAIK, conflating a small number of items, massive notability of the test and the way individual test items have been discussed in depth by several sources. Given that, I find the arguments about excessive detail/examples unconvincing. The inkblot paragraph now makes up less than 10% of the article text, if I measured it right - excluding references, notes etc. cyclopia^speak! 19:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the Blacky pictures test was a poor example, as it was rooted far more firmly in Freudian theories of psychosexual development and was aimed at children, both of which things don't really apply to the Rorschach. In fact, I've just noticed that this article is given Category:Freudian psychology even though there's not one single mention of the good Professor. The Thematic Apperception Test has no examples, whereas showing just one example might be really useful. I'm guessing this may be partly because it is still protected by copyright, but that's not entirely clear at the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I am looking at it and for now I couldn't find a reliable source about the copyright status of the cards. If they are in the public domain they should definitely be added. cyclopia^speak! 10:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, the test has a set of 31 cards, from which a clinician selects 10 to 12 in a typical TAT session. Again I do not see the justification of showing all 31 cards, of even as many as 10. One or two examples should suffice. Probably best to raise a discussion over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, my initial suggestion for improving the article would be to incorporate the current Inkblots section into the Method section, as both cover overlapping content related to the plates. This would help reduce redundancy and improve the article’s structure. To preserve illustrative value, I would propose keeping two images: one of Card IV, given it has a documented reference as "father card", and a colored card (perhaps Card VIII or IX) to highlight visual variation from the more commonly circulated black-and-white plates. Does that seem reasonable? RCS and R-PAS subsections could also benefit from substantial trimming. Tam01 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

How does that sound for a more approachable style of writing, right below "There are ten official inkblots, each printed on a separate white card, approximately 18 by 24 cm in size. Each of the blots has near perfect bilateral symmetry. Five inkblots are of black ink, two are of black and red ink and three are multicolored, on a white background." in the Method section?

"The inkblots include variations in color (some monochromatic, some multicolored) and shading, each potentially eliciting different types of responses. According to various authors, they commonly evoke perceptions of animals, human figures, or abstract shapes, and may provoke associations related to authority, interpersonal dynamics, or sexuality. Certain inkblots are also noted for thematic emphasis. The test introduces increasing visual complexity and color, which can assess the subject's emotional and cognitive responses to less structured stimuli. Together, the images are designed to reveal patterns in personality, thought processes, and affective functioning as the subject progresses through the test."

That would incorporate the most relevant information without the excessive, in-depth detail on every single inkblot. The article would stay focused on the overall procedure rather than delving into exhaustive specifics of each individual phase. Let me know what you think. Tam01 (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I won't say much because I don't want to open the can of worms any more than it is already opened, but what you have written is immeasurably better than what's in the article right now. That's not to say there's no room for improvement, or that other parts of the article don't need a major rewrite. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I also think that's an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve just merged the content about the inkblots into the “Method” section, keeping two plates to illustrate the test’s dynamics. Let me know if you see anything else that could be improved, including tone. Next, I’ll turn my attention to the scoring systems, which could benefit from some streamlining as well. Tam01 (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Father card

(new section)

Just an FYI for anyone who's interested, the idea that there is a "father card" is archaic and has little, if any, empirical support. IMHO reference to a "father card" adds to the misconceptions in an article that is already bloated with misleading information. That's not to disparage or encourage any other criteria for inclusion of blots. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I have slightly adjusted the text and re-used the existing source, from that 1981 Journal of Personality Assessment paper, for Card VII. But I see that this is how rorschach.org refers to them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider rorschach.org a very reputable website or source of information. Sundayclose (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't look like a very professional site, does it. At least it provides links to The International Society of the Rorschach & Projective Methods, The British Rorchach Society and Société du Rorschach. The first of these is provided in the External links section of the article. There might be more detail at the member's area. But academic papers, which mention the "father card" and "mother card", e.g. this one and this one can easily be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Academic papers from 50 or 75 years ago are worthless except as historical records of extremely outdated and unscientific opinions. Thus my use of the term "archaic". I oppose any reference to "father card" or "mother card" unless such a caveat is clearly explained and emphasized. Sundayclose (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So when do you suggest the Rorschach community stopped using those terms? I'd be interested to see your evidence. 1978 is only 37 years ago and 1981 is only 44 years ago, so presumably you're happy with those two? Or are they also "archaic"? I'm really not in any position to judge how quickly concepts become "outdated" in the world of the Rorschach Test, but it seems you are. Did you log in at the members portal at ISR to see they are not mentioned? Perhaps we ought to move this discussion to a separate topic thread. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for being unclear. I'm simply stating that the most widely used interpretive systems today (Exner and R-PAS) don't rely on interpretation of card IV as being indicative of attitudes toward authority (i.e., father figures) unless it's supported by quantifiable, research-based variables (as opposed to "projection" of the test-taker's feelings toward father figures). I understand that the terms per se are used, just widely misunderstood outside the context of empirically supported interpretive strategies. I have avoided having a stake in how this article is written based on the discussions from years ago; perhaps I have taken my involvement in this discussion farther than I should have by my own standards. Thanks for your response to my comments. Sundayclose (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Should we move this discussion to a separate thread? I know you were responding to Tam01, but this is a different topic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously you can start a new thread if you wish to open this issue up to other editors, but I have no interest in any further discussion of "father card". Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I wasn't proposing a completely new thread. I was suggesting splitting off the existing discussion here, from your addition beginning "Just an FYI for anyone who's interested..." above, into a separate thread, regardless of whether or not any other editors wish to comment. Sorry if that was unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm being dense, but I'm not sure what you mean by "splitting off the existing discussion" without creating a separate thread. But go ahead as you think is appropriate. In any event, I doubt I'll have anything more to say about father card. I'm not sure if I'll have any more comments about the general issue of whether any or all blots should be in the article; but probably not. Sundayclose (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean creating a new heading, along the lines of "Father card" and putting this discussion inside it. An alternative would be to just make "Father card" a sub-heading under the existing main heading of "Too much technical detail for an encyclopedic format". How about if I go ahead and split off this discussion as described, and then you can revert if you think it looks odd or inappropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No objection from me either way. Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)