The sad part is that that the arguers against all insist the cards themselves are sacred, rather than the business of studying the patient's process in responding to the cards.
To my mind this is pure pseudoscience. You might as well rely on some automated tarot card reading (versus using the random arrangement of cards as a brainstorming tool to get a new insight into some life situation).
edit: to clarify, I think there's nothing wrong with using inkblots as a diagnostic tool. It's the idea that one can only usefully score these particular inkblots that seems pseudoscientific to me.
It's not so much that the cards are inherently sacred, but that the scoring systems are designed around the 10 cards. Anyone could splotch some ink on paper, but coming up with a scoring system is another matter.
Comments
It marvels me how can psychologists get anything out of that. Most of the cards just look like butterflies.
Anyway, if the cards are public there is no reason for them not to be at wikipedia. I also didn't know the images were always the same.
The sad part is that that the arguers against all insist the cards themselves are sacred, rather than the business of studying the patient's process in responding to the cards.
To my mind this is pure pseudoscience. You might as well rely on some automated tarot card reading (versus using the random arrangement of cards as a brainstorming tool to get a new insight into some life situation).
edit: to clarify, I think there's nothing wrong with using inkblots as a diagnostic tool. It's the idea that one can only usefully score these particular inkblots that seems pseudoscientific to me.
It's not so much that the cards are inherently sacred, but that the scoring systems are designed around the 10 cards. Anyone could splotch some ink on paper, but coming up with a scoring system is another matter.
But yeah, it does seem pseudoscientific.