Multiple Personality Order

Not a typo!  Complete Order going on here.  The dog and fox were an evolution of this page and my attempt to peer in to the imagination of others.  I never should have sent them away.  No reason they can't co-exist with the test material.  It's like...part of their natural habitat.  And look!  A video that has nothing to do with them!

Jump to 2:08 for the inkblot montage:

I intend to make a more comprehensive video without me flipping coins in the begging.  (Which is an ongoing challenge, I might add.)

I know a large portion of the followers of this blog will see this pop up in their feed and not know what the hell I am talking about.  Sorry.  I'll clarify as soon as I figure out what I want this page to look like.

Sensory Overload (Part Eleven)

As usual, quick thanks to the folk at /i/; I am just going to jump right in to it.  There is only one blot I am focusing on here:

Original Blot

All interpretations are anonymous and any text in the thread post was included in quotes at the bottom of the picture.  Click an image used to simply enlarge it, but they changed that.  Still, it is worth checking these out in their natural format.

"Oh uh, he has comically tiny arms."

"Big guy with necklace or something."

Devil bird thing eating somebody's
heart through their ribcage.

"Woo, that was fun"
by Hrimfaxi

"Creature with a boner in his pants and a creature
with boobs and a cloak are about to hug,
when they see something above them."

"Close enough"

"I saw someone maybe, leaning with bloody knees and
feet over a body or pile of blood or soil and
trying to scoop it up but having it crumble/
sift between their fingers."

"It's totally a dragon."

"I got bored half-way through"

No description (not really needed, is it?)

A bit more graphic version of the one above
titled Close Enough

"Saggy tits in a loose, summer blouse, right?

This is one of my favorite collections.  Hats off to all you folk.  I hope we can continue doing this without actually talking about it, because frankly I don't know who on /i/ bothers checking this blog out!  I'll be putting this on Facebook, 'cause I know some of you will want to share some of these awesome bits of art.

Interpretations From /x/

I know usually /i/ is the place to be for interpretations, but on occasion, there are some artistic types floating about on /x/ (paranormal board) that will do requests.  I figured I'd save up a few before I post them.  I have tried to include the name they posted under if there was one.

Original Inkblot

By Anonymous

I am almost positive that the name the person posted
under was "083" and that the number is not just
some file name.  Almost positive.

By Pixelman

By lolcraft

Original Inkblot (Remember this?)

Pretty wild.  And signed.  (I wish more
people would do that!)

Another by Pixelman

By Cannibal

Also by Cannibal, I forget why there are
two, or which one came first.

Surprised?  I mean it is a paranormal discussion board.  If you are on there, then you most likely have some spooky thoughts bouncing around in your cranium, so it stands to reason that most of the interpretations are demon-esq or slightly alien/Slenderman-ish.

I always enjoy any interpretation, so if you drew these in your threads or whenever an inkblot popped up in your discussion, and I forgot to thank you for your time, I'm sorry, and thanks.  One thing before I go:  Who drew this, and what was it an interpretation to?

An Actual Article

Click To Enlarge
You need to read/skim it.

I'm positive that since Izzy was soliciting, he or she would not mind me posting that screenshot.  The images are either mine (submissions) or public domain (Hermann's cards). Here is the article that Izzy produced:

Rorschach Tests: Tainted Testing Tool or Ingenious Inkblot Interrogations?

The Rorschach Test has fallen victim to a lot of slating over the years. Numerous experts in the field of mental health have said the test has little or no validity. Although a report from 2003 admits it has some usefulness, it is not exactly praised either: “Though falling woefully short of the claims made by proponents, [the test] nevertheless possesses validity greater than chance.”
So the question is – is Rorschach a bunch of phoney baloney or does it really work?


Cold Reading

Part of the controversy surrounding the test is the idea that during a session the tester may actually be conducting a form of cold reading. Awareness of cold reading has grown over recent years, with a number of celebrity magicians and illusionists demonstrating their ability to use this technique to mimic the readings offered by psychics and mediums. An experienced cold reader can discover a significant amount of information by studying their subjects body language, speech characteristics, gender, age, religious beliefs, etc. By analysing  someone in this way, a cold reader can reflect back to the person details which give the impression that the reader has mind reading abilities, or that they are able to communicate with dead loved ones. However, these are also things which a skilled therapist would be able to pick up on easily in their clients.


You say Tomato…

Another criticism is that the therapists subjective judgement and interpretation of a patients responses makes the results unreliable. For example, when someone has seen the image of a bra in an inkblot, male psychologists have considered this response as a ‘sex’ response, whereas female psychologists would class it as a ‘clothing’ response. Such varying interpretations mean that patients seeing the same picture will be analysed differently depending on who is doing the testing. And this doesn’t even take into account the natural cultural differences in responses to images.


Yet despite the criticisms, the test is still widely considered an accurate method of evaluation by many. Among clinical psychologists involved in assessment services it is used 80% of the time. Its uses range from detecting personality disorders to evaluating patients that might need alcohol intervention programs. But with so many arguments against it – including its inability to diagnose a wide range of psychological disorders and the difficulty in producing a test ‘norm’ – what has the Rorschach actually got going for it?


Brain Biology

Research has found that one particular inkblot, card III of the 10 original images created by Hermann Rorschach in 1921, shows that people with larger amygdala’s give more unique responses. If you’re not familiar with your amygdala, it’s the part of the brain which processes and stores memories of emotional events. It’s both a useful and pesky piece of biological engineering, both helping us learn how to deal with situations and creating fear programming.  As researchers have found a higher frequency of unique responses from artistic types, this suggests that enlarged amygdala’s might be related to creativity. The test is also widely accepted as a valuable tool in assessing thought disorders in schizophrenics.


What’s in a word?

The test has also been useful in highlighting the variety of thinking patterns found from culture to culture. For example, Japanese participants will often see a ‘musical instrument’ in card VI, whereas other cultures will see an animal hide. Even when patients see a similar creature in the image, the word they choose to describe the creature is unique to their language. Scandinavian’s might see a ‘troll’ where the French will see an ‘ogre’. Whilst at first glance it might be tempting to think these words mean the same thing, each word carries its own connotations. On the one hand, this language difference could be used as an example of the tests vulnerability to interpretation, but it also serves as vital evidence of how the language we grow up using can determine how we process ideas. 


The Ironic Conclusion


Ironically the validity of the Rorschach test is in itself determined by interpretation. This isn’t rare in psychology. Many evaluation tests have both fans and critics alike, as do various types of therapies and theories. The definitions of mental illnesses themselves, and ideas about what creates mental wellness, differ depending on who you speak to. The answer to the question of whether Rorschach is a tainted testing tool or ingenious inkblot interrogation is much like the nature of the ink blobs  - it’s in the eye of the beholder. 

Total Redemption: Insert - The Process

I seem to have lost any descriptive file name, but I
think we can all agree that this is pretty crazy.

This person is crazy.  What's that, you say?  "How can I clean the inside of my windshield without leaving streaks or particles?"  By drawing out your thought process:

See?  Spotless.  Our one and only anonymous submitter for the contest gets the shaft.  I was rather hoping for three or more people to have a contest, and I stand by my stipulations presented earlier.

However, you (the Anonymous Submitter or 'AS') were kind enough to send in three entries.  What a perfect amount to achieve Redemption!  It's the least we can do for you.  I say "we," but I am not too sure who is still paying attention to things around here, but I must share your (AS) work.  And have people rate your sanity.

If you (the reader) are an old hand at dealing out Sanity Scores, then I apologize for the rigid voting system that takes away your precious decimals!  Feel free to comment on any/all of AS's submissions. Otherwise, just go to the voting widget on the right and compact your opinion in to one number.

Here are the other two:

Beetlelove with explosion or tidal wave?

Self-Portrait?  Doc Brown from Back To The Future
with his brains bursting forth?

I wish I had the text.  If there was any.  I am starting to doubt it now.

OK, so go and vote, and tell all your friends about Batman, so they will vote.  I guess I can safely say, as an honest-to-myself-blogger, that this post might be here for awhile.

My thanks to AS.  You are most certainly a good sport and I hope to still see a drawing or two from you over time!

Comments?

Not A New Revelation

A juggler whose routine was ruined by the
appearance of two bee-demons in love.

I can't draw.  But we knew this.  Thanks again for sharing the blots, Toby.

D.B. Revisited

Again, in total disregard of influencing your personal interpretation:
I see two winged demons about to share a kiss over a fat juggler.

You remember D.B.?  Here is a refresher:  This is a link.  It will take you to a page from this blog from June.

Wow, that wasn't that long ago and I have no recollection what I was trying to do there, video-wise.  I do remember thinking Toby (let's be nice) was a snarky little bastard, the kind of punk that I wish I could commit violence to just to demonstrate to the younger generations that they need to take random inkblot tests more seriously.

See that inkblot up there?  HE MADE THAT.  And get this:  HE DIDN'T MAKE IT FOR ME.  It was for some class or credit, I believe.  But he was nice enough to share, as he promised, and that one is my favorite.  Here are the other two:

Unfortunate cropping.  Blame Facebook.

This one...hurts...somehow.

Well, hell.  If he was nice enough to share, the least I could do is draw my interpretation (not right now, but tonight. Really!) on one. I'm not entirely sure why it took me over a year to realize this, but I shall make this offer to you: If you make an inkblot (put your initials on the corner somewhere. And don't snag one from Google images! I'm sort of familiar with like, 33% of them!) I will attempt to draw on it. Kind of the opposite of my goal here, but "tit for tat," as they say in Tittytatta.

So before I ask you what you see on Toby's Blots, let me just remind you of THE OFFICIAL ART CONTEST going on, and highlight that out of all the interpretations I have receiv...I DON'T HAVE ANY ENTRIES YET!  (*SOB*)

Are you a gamer?  Do you know gamers that are also good artists?  Can you share this link with people that might like to win an 12-Month Xbox Live gift card?

Alright.  Now, what do you see in Toby's Blots?  I'll share my interpretation tomorrow.