Some Say, Not Much By Erica Goode

If I told you that a blob of ink can determine your personality, would you believe me? According to “What’s in an inkblot? Some Say, Not Much” by Erica Goode, the Rorschach inkblot test is a psychological test that asks the reader to interpret what they see in order to determine a person's personality or tendencies. The people who agree and disagree with the use of the Rorschach test are similar in that they both use evidence to support their claims, but the people who agree with it use a great deal of scientific support while the people who disagree with its uses, claim it’s not useful and it’s scientifically useless. Others will prove or disprove the use of the Rorschach test and its validity. Some people state that the test gives a great
deal of scientific evidence support while others deem it as scientifically worthless. “They have been used for a long time very effectively, with very good results and a great deal of scientific support,' he (Dr. Weiner) said” (Goode pg 3). “Dr. Lilienfeld and his colleagues argue, for example, that there is ‘'virtually no evidence’' that the Rorschach can accurately diagnose…” (Goode pg 4). Some will say that the test can look past the way people show themselves and how they want others to perceive them; however others will claim that no additional knowledge is gained. “...it is not clear how much additional knowledge is gained from the test” (Goode pg 5). “...the Rorschach is a way to look beyond the way people present themselves” (Goode pg 4).
According to some people the Rorschach can show a person’s strengths, weaknesses, and can identify your mental functions and tendencies. Others say that the test's ability is limited to identify or diagnose mental illnesses or trauma. “With the comprehensive system, the test can yield a complex picture of people's psychological strengths and weaknesses, the Rorschach's proponents say, including their intelligence and overall mental functioning, their ability to relate appropriately to other people, their sexuality, and their fantasies, fears and preoccupations” (Goode pg 4). “While the Rorschach and the other projective techniques may be valuable in certain specific situations, the reviewers argue, the test's' ability to diagnose mental illnesses, assess personality characteristics, predict behavior or uncover sexual abuse or other trauma is very limited” (Goode pg 2). The Rorschach test is believed by some people to be able to identify violence tendencies, but others will disagree stating that it doesn’t show or diagnose emotional problems. “...insight into a prisoner's criminal tendencies or potential for violence. Clinicians use it in investigating accusations of sexual abuse, and psychotherapists, as a guide in diagnosing and treating patients” (Goode pg 1). “'...'virtually no evidence' that
the Rorschach can accurately diagnose depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder or some other emotional problems” (Goode pg 4). The test can make people volunteer negative information about themselves, while others claim the test over pathologizes people. “The test is considered particularly powerful in situations in which people may not be expected to volunteer negative information about themselves” (Goode pg 4). “...the test tends to ''overpathologize,'' making even normal people look maladjusted” (Goode pg 5). In the end people will debate over the use of the Rorschach Test and if it's scientifical properties. Given these points I disagree with the use of the Rorschach tests. I feel that the tests can assess your knowledge, but just by what you see can’t determine what state your mind is in. In Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes the main character Charlie Gordon takes a Rorschach test and makes a good point. “The test still doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that anyone could make up lies about things that they didn't really see. How could he know…” (Keyes pg 45).” Overall I disagree with the use of the Rorschach test because it is scientifically useless.