User:Jahsonic/Notes on the 2011 Belgian debate on psychoanalysis and the Rorschach test
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
- In 'De Standaard' verscheen een kritisch artikel over de psychoanalyse. "De psychoanalyse is geen exacte wetenschap in strikte zin zoals bijvoorbeeld de chirurgie – geen enkele psychologische theorie kan dat zijn, maar ze is ook allerminst een pseudowetenschappelijke ideologie", reageert klinisch psycholoog Erik Mertens.
- In De Standaard van 26 en 27 november schreven Geerdt Magiels en Filip Buekens een hatelijk opiniestuk over de Sloveense, psychoanalytisch geïnspireerde, filosoof Slavoj Zizek. Joël De Ceulaer vulde twee volledige bladzijden van de weekendkrant de week nadien om de psychoanalyse te hekelen. Bekijk hun stukken goed en je ziet warempel de Koning zoals Hamlet: “The body is with the King, but the King is not with the body. The King is a thing. – A thing, my Lord? – Of nothing.” --DeWereldMorgen.be[1]
- "De waarheid omtrent de Rorschach test is simpel: net zoals om het even welke andere psychologische test hebben de resultaten ervan slechts betekenis in zoverre ze geïnterpreteerd worden in het kader van de ruimere subjectiviteit van de onderzochte. De Ceulaer kent hoogstwaarschijnlijk niets van het ruimere domein van de validiteit van psychologische testen, anders zou hij veel genuanceerder zijn in zijn uitspraken. Meta-analyses van validiteit van psychologische tests van de hand van niet-psychoaanalytische auteurs als Gregory Meyer (2001, American Psychologist) laten er geen twijfel over bestaan: de Rorschach is even valide (of even weinig valide) als andere psychologische tests. Men moet alleen afstappen van de idee dat een testresultaat OP ZICH iets zou zeggen. Resultaten van psychologische tests betekenen alleen iets binnen het ruimere verhaal van de onderzochte. In dit opzicht zijn ze ook niet op hun plaats als in een ruimere procedure. " --[2] Op 12 oktober 2011 omstreeks 22:44, zei Mattias D., Meigem:
[edit]
Three comparative tests
- Blacky test scores before and after genito-urinary surgery by Lasky, JJ, & Berger. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1959, see Blacky Test
- Rorschach Scores of Parachute Troopers in Training. --Ross, WD, et al.
- A Rorschach group test was given to 65 volunteers accepted for parachute training, and 33 who had failed to complete such training for reasons presumably related to personality factors. The second group differed significantly from the first in having a lower mean number of responses, a greater variation in number of responses per slide, and a greater number of failures to respond. These characteristics are typical of unstable and neurotic subjects. It is necessary to conclude, however, "that the group Rorschach, by itself, cannot provide a criterion for prediction of the remaining paratroopers unlikely to complete their course when these have already been selected by personal interview." FW Finger (Psychol. Abstr.).
- Shalit (1965) administered the Rorschach to 20 young male sailors on board a relatively small ship during a severe storm. He compared his findings with those from about a year earlier, done at the time of their joining the Israeli Navy
See Effects of environmental stimulation on the M, FM and m responses in the Rorschach. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, Vol 29(2), 1965, 228-231.
Piotrowski and Schreiber (1952) found that m responses tend to disappear in the posttreatment records of patients who are judged as responding successfully to treatment. Shalit (1965) was the first to report definitive findings ...
Meloy's (2008) recent review of 150 appellate cases that included the Rorschach between 1996 and 2005 noted that there had been no Daubert challenge to the scientific status of the Rorschach in any appellate court during that time
Geerdt Magiels WAT IS ER GEBEURD? WIE HEEFT HET GEDAAN?Waarheidsvinding en rechtspraak over de Rorschach test
"History of the Rorschach Inkblot Test"[3] by Philip Schatz, Ph.D.
- According to Exner (1993), the first publication of Hermann Rorschach's 10 inkblots was in 1921 as a monograph, Psychodiagnostik. For the 1940's and 1950's, the Rorschach was the test of choice in clinical psychology. It fell into disfavor as many clinicians began criticizing it as "subjective" and "projective" in nature. Ironically, this was never the intention of Rorschach.
[edit]
See also
Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Jahsonic/Notes on the 2011 Belgian debate on psychoanalysis and the Rorschach test" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.
