![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 6, 2004, at 13:28:00
I went in a couple of weeks ago to do the inkblot test and the MMPI2 test ... the guy was really nice and I get to review his report with him before he sends it to the pdoc and regular doc.
After I did the test I looked around a bit and found the inkblot test online ... almost the same blots except without color... now I'm a bit freaked because on one it said "DON'T MENTION THE LAMP, only shchizophrenic ppl see the lamp". Unfortunately ... so did I ... well in fact I said it was a mushroom or a lamp ... hopefully thats better :P.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on May 6, 2004, at 18:28:14
In reply to I get my projective tests results today, posted by Camille Dumont on May 6, 2004, at 13:28:00
Cool well minus the lamp lol but as you had a few responses to it it may have helped and I know the site you mention I have been there..and remember the tester takes more into your answers and the other test is better anyhow I have read....when will you know the results?
HUGS
> I went in a couple of weeks ago to do the inkblot test and the MMPI2 test ... the guy was really nice and I get to review his report with him before he sends it to the pdoc and regular doc.
>
> After I did the test I looked around a bit and found the inkblot test online ... almost the same blots except without color... now I'm a bit freaked because on one it said "DON'T MENTION THE LAMP, only shchizophrenic ppl see the lamp". Unfortunately ... so did I ... well in fact I said it was a mushroom or a lamp ... hopefully thats better :P.
Posted by Dinah on May 7, 2004, at 4:33:39
In reply to I get my projective tests results today, posted by Camille Dumont on May 6, 2004, at 13:28:00
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 11:06:34
In reply to Re: How'd it go? (nm) » Camille Dumont, posted by Dinah on May 7, 2004, at 4:33:39
Ok, better than a shrink, better than my T, I saw this guy 4 hours, answered a few true or false, told him what I saw in inkblots and WOAH! Did he nail the whole mental process / motivation / psychological problems right on!
I was totally surprised at how well those things describe me. Talk about a perceptive pdoc. He even showed me the MMPI graph thing to show me the scales that I got high on and the ones I got low on.
I also got good news in that the depression doesn't seem to be the primary problem in that its not "I'm depressed because of whatever chemical imbalance and therefore it reflects itself on my personality" but rather that my personality is mainly schizoid because those are the types of defense mechanisms that work for me but in then they fail ... thus making me depressed. This would suggest that the solution will be more to change the personality rather than just medicate and once that is fixed, I would be able to go without meds.
The other good news : I'm not psychotic. Apparently ppl with the kind of pd I have, when under stress tend to have psychotic-like symptoms such as visual hallucinations and depersonalization, which would explain alot about the visual illusions ... as if I'm perhaps trying to project the world I'm escaping to into the real world (if that makes any sense) and therefore confirms my suspicion that I definately DO NOT need antipsychotics ... which in fact didn't do anything to alleviate the illusions.
So in retrospective : bloody expensive ... C$700 ... hopefully the insurance will cover a part of that but it did help ALOT as in I now undersand why I do certain things ... hopefully this will help me change the way I interact with others.
Posted by Dinah on May 7, 2004, at 11:25:59
In reply to Call me a projective test worshiper (long), posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 11:06:34
I'm a huge MMPI fan, too. I thought it nailed me spot on. Unfortunately it didn't do a lot to tell me what I should do about it. :)
I'm a 2-7-8, how about you (if you're comfortable with it anyway)?
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 14:07:20
In reply to Re: Call me a projective test worshiper (long) » Camille Dumont, posted by Dinah on May 7, 2004, at 11:25:59
Hmmm ... he didn't actually tell me "what" I was but he did show me the scales. I didn't even know there were "types".
I remember that I was "way up there" on the D, Pt, Sc and Si ... and super low on the K ... the rest was pretty much in the normal range.
How are the "types" determined?
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 14:27:34
In reply to Re: Call me a projective test worshiper (long), posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 14:07:20
Well, if its the 3 highest ones, I guess that would make me a 2-7-8 as well ....
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 14:33:29
In reply to Re: Call me a projective test worshiper (long), posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 14:27:34
Either that or 2-8-0 ... not sure which one of the 7 or 0 was the highest.
Posted by Dinah on May 7, 2004, at 15:46:16
In reply to Re: Call me a projective test worshiper (long), posted by Camille Dumont on May 7, 2004, at 14:33:29
I also had an elevated scale 0, as might be expected for someone so introverted that it's amazing that I'm not inside out. But the books generally don't include that in the "type" coding, so while I said I'm a 2-7-8, I guess I'm really a 2-7-8-0. All scales about the same in elevation - low seventies.
Glad to know you! I've never met a fellow 2-7-8 before. I don't recall if I've seen any studies on how prevalent it is.
My therapist got a kick out of, but wisely kept his mouth rather obviously shut, because 2-7-8 is associated with schizotypal personality disorder, which I still don't think fits me but he does.
I wasn't as impressed with the Rorschach results. It said that I work hard to make sense, or a coherent whole, or something, out of lots of information, but that I eventually grew tired at the effort involved and started jumping to wrong conclusions when under stress. I dunno. That seemed like a lot of conclusions to jump to from a few cards...
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 8, 2004, at 0:15:38
In reply to Re: Well, hi there, sister in MMPI » Camille Dumont, posted by Dinah on May 7, 2004, at 15:46:16
I'm just curious as to what the other types are ... although I guess there must be TONS of them.
As for the Rorschach it was a bit interesting. It said I'm depresse (what a surprise :P). Said I had important internal conflicts and suppress my emotions because I was somehow depressed or deprived when I was younger. It said that I have "dependence" needs but that I keep away from people because I'm afraid of being "subjected" to them, which in turn makes me angry so I defend myself by using schizoid mechanisms, intellectualisation and repression.
Its kind of "general" but it does describe myself rather well ... It totally surprised me ... I mean considering its based on what I see in inkblots.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2004, at 10:39:38
In reply to Do you know a website that describes the types?, posted by Camille Dumont on May 8, 2004, at 0:15:38
Camille,
I'm glad your testing was helpful for you. It is strange how so much can be gotten out of what seems so mundane.I don't know of a website that gives descriptions of the profiles for the MMPI. Actually, the test is supposed to be protected material, so if there is something there, hopefully it doesn't "spoil" the test for those who are going to take it in the future.
Regarding determining your own profile...The most reliable profile is the one that has clearly defined elevations. If one scale is the highest, and the next highest are more than five points lower (some say 10 points), then you are really a single scale code type. The other elevations do add to the understanding, but your "code type" is just the single scale. For example, (warning: disclosure here!) I am a scale 4 elevation. None of the other scales when I took it a few years ago were clinically elevated. So my code type is scale 4. (Of course I prefer to use the number rather than the name of this scale, as I think the name is a bit appalling.)
So say you have two or more that are elevated and are all within 5 points of the highest scale...that would be a multi-scale code type. So 2-7-8 is a code type if 7 and 8 are within five points of 2. Again, this does not mean that there is nothing to be gained by the other scales. Code types are just typically occuring patterns that have a certain amount of research behind them to validate them. Other combinations may be significant for the person, but there may not be any research validating that code type as frequently occuring.
I hope this makes a tiny bit of sense. I feel like I am rambling.
I am interested, however, in the website you described about the inkblots. It sounds really interesting. Are you able to share the site?
gg
Posted by Camille Dumont on May 8, 2004, at 21:43:43
In reply to Re: Do you know a website that describes the types? » Camille Dumont, posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2004, at 10:39:38
Well, although I do not have a photographic memory, I do remember that that the highest one was 2 and that 8 was also very high and in fact pretty much close to the height of 2.
7 was high but lower than 8 ... and 0 was lower than 7 ... but anyhow, given that there doesn't seem to be a description ... it doesn't help much.
As for the website its there :
http://www.toddlertime.com/general/rorschach-test.htm
Although the drawing resemble the actual inkblots ... there is no colors shown plus the details are different ... but it gives you a good idea I guess.
Posted by spoc on May 12, 2004, at 1:18:37
In reply to Re: Do you know a website that describes the types? » Camille Dumont, posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2004, at 10:39:38
> I am interested, however, in the website you described about the inkblots. It sounds really interesting. Are you able to share the site?
><<<< Hi gardenergirl, I was wondering if you'd be comfortable commenting on that site if you've seen it? I actually stopped short of looking at or reading about the blots, since I've never had that or any testing. But I'd like to check out the site, and was wondering if someone in the industry would think it a bad idea. I did read the lead-in, which kinda seemed to divulge a lot, if accurate.
I did take the "civilian" test at Tickle.com, but I assume that can't compare on any level. But I wonder what the translations of their findings would be in psy terms. Or, if the strucure is so different that there would be no parallels.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 14, 2004, at 14:28:46
In reply to Re: website that describes the types » gardenergirl, posted by spoc on May 12, 2004, at 1:18:37
spoc,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post. I got caught up in other stuff (seems you did too!)Anyway, I was fairly disappointed when I viewed that site. I'm not sure what the purpose is for putting that on the web. I think it's one thing if you are anxious about taking the test and want to know something about it, but that I felt like if I were taking the test, that kind of information would contaminate the process.
Plus, some of the statements about what you should or should not "see" and what it means do not appear, as far as my memory serves, to be all that accurate. There is no "one" answer on the Rorschach that gives you a diagnosis of any kind. It's the overall pattern of responses and total or responses that mean the most.
So I guess if I were giving the test to someone who had viewed that site, I would feel that the results probably do not give a true picture of the person's unconscious processes. That's disappointing, and I think it would make the test much less useful for the test giver but more important, for the test taker. But it depends on why the test if being given and what the test taker is wanting to get out of it.
I think I would rather have the test taker talk with me about their concerns about the test rather than check out a website in advance. I try to answer questions and concerns as best I can without giving away information that will affect the person's responses. But it is a scary test. That's part of the test itself. How well does the person manage something so unstructured and ambiguous?
Just my response to the site.... I also get really angry when I see the blots in a commercial or movie. They are supposed to be protected material. But obviously, they can be accessed, as they are out there. I applaud you for not viewing the whole site. That will leave you more unbiased if you ever take it.
I don't know of the test at Tickle. Do you have a link?
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 14, 2004, at 14:31:24
In reply to Interesting ..., posted by Camille Dumont on May 8, 2004, at 21:43:43
Sorry Camille,
I meant to thank you for posting the URL. I hope your testing experience was helpful for you. I know it can be grueling. I always feel a bit like I am inflicting cruel and unusual punishment when I am administering a battery of tests to someone. I admire your stamina in completing them.Take care,
gg
Posted by Dinah on May 14, 2004, at 15:48:22
In reply to Re: website that describes the types » spoc, posted by gardenergirl on May 14, 2004, at 14:28:46
I only looked afterwards, not before the test. But I'm glad I did. Out of the blue in the part of the report that discussed the Rorshach was a comment that would have distressed me if I hadn't known the source of the conclusion, and had a ridiculously simple and totally innocuous reason for why I answered the way I did.
I was somewhat more annoyed at Eschner (sp???) for coming up with such odd and seemingly arbitrary ways of interpreting test results.
Posted by spoc on May 14, 2004, at 18:16:10
In reply to Re: website that describes the types » spoc, posted by gardenergirl on May 14, 2004, at 14:28:46
> spoc,
> Sorry for the delay in responding to your post. I got caught up in other stuff (seems you did too!)*** Yes, ugh. I seem to be struggling with myself to be who I am even when it would be easier not to, because sometimes I cop out on that in real life. Then, later, I wonder if part of it was just being compulsive or impulsive (for letting "individuality" win; not for having perceived there to be a decent reason to consider using it). Ouch, I make myself so tense sometimes! IT HURTS! : (
> Just my response to the site.... I also get really angry when I see the blots in a commercial or movie. They are supposed to be protected material. But obviously, they can be accessed, as they are out there. I applaud you for not viewing the whole site. That will leave you more unbiased if you ever take it. >
***I can understand that. It's not the same as when people roll their eyes over some silly no no and choose to ignore it because it is arbitrary. Like, say, getting off the Stairmaster at the gym after 20 minutes because the sign say so -- EVEN when no one is waiting! With the blots, there is the potential to ruin something for people who may come upon the information too quickly to stop and think about it. I didn't look hard but didn't see any reason provided at the site for why they were doing that. I mean, normally it wouldn't be surprising to see someone do that just because they could, but it looked like a business or something.
Of course, for someone not searching for or "needing" answers and help, it may never matter. Other than that, I'm guessing some people would like a heads-up in case it's possible for legal decisions concerning them to be based on the results of various testing?
> I don't know of the test at Tickle. Do you have a link? >
*** The first link below is the main page, where you can see all the various tests offered. I assume not a lot of stock should be put in any of them! But just guessing. The second leads you into the page where you have to register to take the free test. Note that you can use a fake name, I did.
http://web.tickle.com/tests/inkblot/authorize/register.jsp?url=/tests/inkblot/index.jsp
The test was fun. I can't remember how many blots there were, but there were a total of about 60 questions which were composed of about 2 to 7 questions per blot. I probably thought too much about how to answer. For example, if the blot looked like a Halloween decoration demon (the answers are multiple choice so you know it's not *just* you!), it might give you 8 or so different options on what it made you feel. Well, one of the options would be "Fear," and 'of course' I know scariness is part of anything that apparently to many looks like a demon with glowing eyes... But NO, by no means was I feeling "Fear!" so I would choose something like "Curious."
My results ended up saying I was "Imaginative," and spun it into mostly neato sounding stuff that made me want to buy the detailed report! Actually the report did make some keen observations, but there's a trick to structuring that stuff universally, right? Even if it sounds very individualized. Anyway! While taking the test I did analyze the questions too much, but I'm just curious if any psy correlation would consider "Imaginative" to be "Delusional" or something! I *am* sure that's not one of my issues!
And I think there could be some irony in it, in that I was being *so* analytical about the reasons for everything, that I may have convoluted the results into sounding like I'm the opposite! I mean, I didn't answer the way I *thought* I was supposed to or anything, but I considered way too much in answering each question. And I do recall kinda wanting to be different, while not answering falsely either (see why I'm always so behind??). I guess according to that blabber mouth web site, this would all mean something -- that I took so long. But maybe it just means that I can't do it naturally when it's in multiple choice form and I can get to pondering... which I tend to *like* to do! I *hadn't* had to search to see anything at all in the blots by any means.
I'd be really curious to know what you think if you take it. Please post back! And if you want a way to easily generate an anonymous screenname to sign up with, awhile back on Admin I posted about sneakemail.com, a free email address "encrypting" service. Sorry to ramble, this time my excuse is that I thought a subject's-eye-view might be interesting! :- )
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.