Doubts about my future profession - Please Input

[The Johnny]

Objective study of mind is impossible under modern technological limitations. You want to learn anything about psychology then, by all means read some Freud, read some Jung, fuck read some Castaneda or Timothy Leary you might end up with the kind of half-assed impression that the greatest shrinks of the day aspire to. Solution is simple - you have a fully observable test mind at your disposal - go experiment on it. Mental process is something you have to experience first hand but be warned (omgz quantums) the observer will affect the results

If you want to learn something about Psychology, those are some key people to completely ignore.  As for the observer affecting the results bit, that's what double blind studies and control groups are for.

Yes, being objective might be impossible, the proposed solution is to acknowledge one's own positioning, and attempt to be aware of it, so as to know its limitations (read Devereaux's "From anxiety to method in the behavioural sciences"), meta-situational awareness is essential.

Freud seems fine so far, Jung seems to have gone off the deep end, Leary idk about, and Castaneda.... Castaneda I wouldn't consider seriously, its just drug-trip tales id say. Introspection is quite interesting id like to add – but I personally think its more fruitful with the aid of someone else, if just as someone to be your "mirror" and just listen.

[Requia ☣]

The Ball and Bat problem goes as follows "A bat and a ball together cost $1.10, the bat costs one dollar more than the ball."

Which seems very easy but people get it wrong ~87% of the time in nearly all tests run on it (MIT students are the only group ever to do better that I've heard of).

It's a bias, rather than being bad at math, because people will usually get it right if the ball and bat cost 37 cents and the bat is 23 cents more than the ball.

Because it's a symbolical expression of a desire; there is also cases of devaluation with drawing a sibling with defects or ugly features.
Yes, exactly, as ive said, it's a tool, an aide for diagnosis, but its not 100% reliable, it must be taken in the context of other data. Also, if the rapport isn't done appropriately, the results can be completely off, also if the person is under stress or if its forced to do it.

Or these cultures of a history of looking down on women who are sexually active, or its based on triggering incest avoidence instincts etc.  No hypothesis for this is worth a damn till you can run an experiment on it.

Yes, I know what you speak of about Family Drawing, there isn't a database; but I ask you, which other interpretations can you draw from such an important omission in the drawing? In this specific case I made up its what I would consider a very straight forward meaning, but its not always that easy or obvious.

I can't draw *any* conclusions from that, I have no data, for all I know girls who really like the color green won't draw their brothers (there are stranger correlations out there).  For a Freudian bonus, it only applies to girls who really like the color green, but are ashamed of it, so won't admit they like the color green.

[Requia ☣]

 

It never fails to amuse me that people get it wrong even when I tell them its a trap.  For clarification, the bat is only 90 cents more than the ball if the bat is 1$ and the ball is 10 cents.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

ball is $1, bat is $2, its a special offer if you buy them together*

That can fall under the heading of biological reductionism.

And?  Both my answer and (I'm guessing) your belief in the Oedipal complex are both rationalisations based on our internal models of humanity each with a lack of definitive evidence.  Can I ask what exactly you are looking for in this thread?  I don't want this to seem like a personal attack, but it seems to me that this thread is not (for you) a learning experience, but rather an extended and impressive exercise in confirmation bias.

Also, I only skimmed these next articles, but they seemed pretty negative towards projective testing, so I imagine you can find something of interest in them:

http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/895917/download/56-3-2000-5%20Rorschahiana4.pdf

http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/896289/display/145-1rorschachiana.pdf

http://www.wfu.edu/psychology/faculty/pubs/wood/multiple%20methods%20in%20personality%20psychology%20(Roberts,Harms,Smith,Wood,Webb,%202006).pdf



Also,

Freud seems fine so far

If you buy into his theory fair enough I suppose, but as a human being he is an absolutely intolerable, egotistical piece of shit.  More on that on request.



x

edd

[The Johnny]

The Ball and Bat problem goes as follows "A bat and a ball together cost $1.10, the bat costs one dollar more than the ball."

Which seems very easy but people get it wrong ~87% of the time in nearly all tests run on it (MIT students are the only group ever to do better that I've heard of).

It's a bias, rather than being bad at math, because people will usually get it right if the ball and bat cost 37 cents and the bat is 23 cents more than the ball.

Because it's a symbolical expression of a desire; there is also cases of devaluation with drawing a sibling with defects or ugly features.
Yes, exactly, as ive said, it's a tool, an aide for diagnosis, but its not 100% reliable, it must be taken in the context of other data. Also, if the rapport isn't done appropriately, the results can be completely off, also if the person is under stress or if its forced to do it.

Or these cultures of a history of looking down on women who are sexually active, or its based on triggering incest avoidence instincts etc.  No hypothesis for this is worth a damn till you can run an experiment on it.

Yes, I know what you speak of about Family Drawing, there isn't a database; but I ask you, which other interpretations can you draw from such an important omission in the drawing? In this specific case I made up its what I would consider a very straight forward meaning, but its not always that easy or obvious.

I can't draw *any* conclusions from that, I have no data, for all I know girls who really like the color green won't draw their brothers (there are stranger correlations out there).  For a Freudian bonus, it only applies to girls who really like the color green, but are ashamed of it, so won't admit they like the color green.

Yes, i understand your point. But thats why i have been mentioning repeatedly that Family Drawing its not a conclusive test, its an aide:

The method is to tell the subject along the lines of "Could you please draw a family in this piece of paper?" which gives way to them usually drawing their own family by default without feeling the pressure to do so. Even if they draw stereotypes derived from any source, it all is useful. The subject is observed to see what reactions or behaviour it has during the drawing of each element, also if it erases, or traces very hard. Then the subject is questioned about who they are, who does it feel identified to, who do they like the most, who do they like the least and other questions. This usually is done parallel to a family history questionnaire, filled out by the parents with libidinal/cognitive/motor skills questionnaire.

Then after all this information is obtained, one proceeds to interpret the drawing and hypothesize about what is going on with said person, and based on these one has more guidance.

Take another example, said girl does draw her brother, but without arms; now that is a much more ambiguous symbolism: could it mean his brother has a deformity? accident? what do the arms typically symbolize in humans? is she associating him to a media figure without arms?, etc.

[The Johnny]

ball is $1, bat is $2, its a special offer if you buy them together*

That can fall under the heading of biological reductionism.

And?  Both my answer and (I'm guessing) your belief in the Oedipal complex are both rationalisations based on our internal models of humanity each with a lack of definitive evidence.  Can I ask what exactly you are looking for in this thread?  I don't want this to seem like a personal attack, but it seems to me that this thread is not (for you) a learning experience, but rather an extended and impressive exercise in confirmation bias.

Also, I only skimmed these next articles, but they seemed pretty negative towards projective testing, so I imagine you can find something of interest in them:

http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/895917/download/56-3-2000-5%20Rorschahiana4.pdf

http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/896289/display/145-1rorschachiana.pdf

http://www.wfu.edu/psychology/faculty/pubs/wood/multiple%20methods%20in%20personality%20psychology%20(Roberts,Harms,Smith,Wood,Webb,%202006).pdf

Also,

Freud seems fine so far

If you buy into his theory fair enough I suppose, but as a human being he is an absolutely intolerable, egotistical piece of shit.  More on that on request.
x
edd

ITT im doing several things: observing the manifestation of mainstream generalizations-criticisms to psycho-analysis; then im also attempting to address the more serious criticisms based on facts rather than notions; im creating a booklist of critics.

I will read these PDFs and get back to you.

If you don't mind sharing, id like to hear. I only know that he had been a cocaine junkie for a while and that he might had caused the death of a couple of people by medical malpractice in regards to the same drug.

[Requia ☣]

Yes, i understand your point. But thats why i have been mentioning repeatedly that Family Drawing its not a conclusive test, its an aide:

How do you know that its and aid and not a hindrance?  It is entirely possible that not one single valid conclusion has been drawn from the test in the lest 50 years.  You have no way of knowing.

[The Johnny]

22. Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology

http://www.wfu.edu/psychology/faculty/pubs/wood/multiple%20methods%20in%20personality%20psychology%20(Roberts,Harms,Smith,Wood,Webb,%202006).pdf[/url]

It was indeed a light skimming RB, for this one article doesnt speak against proyective tests, but rather for the complimentary limited scope of utility of different kinds of tests, and that i can agree with. (Disregarding a lot of the theory they speak of in the article, i did go into detail, but the stupid post got lost in limbo)

Ill get back to you on the ones regarding Rorschach.

[The Johnny]

"Projective Test use among school psychologists: A survey and critique"

http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/896289/display/145-1rorschachiana.pdf

Perception of utility? That is only fishing for opinions of the users of said tests, which says nothing of its real utility. Fuck that.

Althought, it is frightening to know what they are used for:

to make important educational decisions, such as eligibility determination and intervention planning.

. But i would like to know which specific "important educational decisions" to know for myself if they actually are "important".

I reiterate: projective testings are good as an aide, and to "generate hypothesis", but not as a conclusive, one-shot fix all for diagnostics.

[The Johnny]

BTW, in the manner in which these school practitioners used the tests, i would consider it on the border of malpractice.