"Yes, they can yield valuable insight in to a disturbed person's mind" [17 out of 24 votes (%70)]
That was from the first poll 'Do you feel that inkblots have any place in modern psychology?'
I should of left out the adjective 'disturbed.' I don't know why I threw 'modern' in there. I'm afraid I didn't learn too much from my poorly-constructed options. I was just eager to try the poll gadget out on the blog.
If you show a random person that you just met some inkblots, and they say some messed up stuff like, "blood, milk and murder," you can't exactly label them any one way, there is just not enough data. If, however, you have been having one-hour meetings once a day over several or more months with this individual, learning about their history, how they grew up, how they live from day to day, you STILL couldn't apply any sort of label to them based solely on their response to inkblots.
Point being: like Michael pointed out the other day, the blots are at best a tool on the workbench of psychology.
If you are viewing any of these blots and have this thought flash through your head, 'I should not be thinking THAT' then it is up to you to remove your tinfoil hat, stop rubbing feces on your face, and go get some fresh air.
Thanks to everyone that voted. I hope you continue to do so.
Don't forget you can click on the image to see it full size.