Warwick’s review of The Inkblots: Hermann Rorschach, His Iconic Test, and the Power of Seeing > Likes and Comments
32 likes · Like
Thank you for this review! I am tempted to try reading this, but if I don’t (because my stack is already miles high), your review gives me a good feel for Rorschach and his inkblots.
You're welcome! It's definitely worth a look. Everyone knows the test, but no one really knows anything about the man behind it anymore.
Thanks for this, Warwick. That photo! His face looks very symmetrical with the widow's peak dividing it in two but when I covered up each half, I thought I could see two different men.
And interesting too that there are two distinct halves in the book, and that the judgement on his legacy is so distinctly different as well.
Are you saying you’re using the photograph of Rorschach…as a Rorschach test? Ingenious!
Fionnuala wrote: "Thanks for this, Warwick. That photo! His face looks very symmetrical with the widow's peak dividing it in two but when I covered up each half, I thought I could see two different men.
And interes..."
ROFL. :-)
It's so true, that picture really is weirdly different on each side!
Fascinating - especially that he was more interested in the sort of shapes people saw, rather than if they described obviously happy or sinister things.
Yes, that kind of schema about how to parse someone’s responses is exactly what made it a proper replicable “test”, in Rorschach’s eyes, rather than just an interpretative exercise.
I'm glad his images are no longer used diagnostically, as the first thought to come to mind in your example above was "crab parts," which signify a deeply indecisive nature (neither strictly animate nor inanimate, silent as to male or female, etc.)
The two green things at the bottom look very much like inflamed appendices, though, so perhaps I should write a book on how this influential figure was able to foresee his own death.
Yes, I see shrimps and crab-things under the Eiffel Tower, and imagine a scene where a load of sealife is rising up in the Seine. Happily, I have no idea what this says about us.
Incidentally, it's crucial to doing the test in lab conditions that you've never seen the ten images before, which is why clinical psychologists don't like the images to be reprinted elsewhere. I think Searls compromises by reproducing two or three of them but leaving the rest unprinted.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Terri R
(new)
Feb 24, 2026 07:49AM
Thank you for this review! I am tempted to try reading this, but if I don’t (because my stack is already miles high), your review gives me a good feel for Rorschach and his inkblots.
reply
|
flag
You're welcome! It's definitely worth a look. Everyone knows the test, but no one really knows anything about the man behind it anymore.
Thanks for this, Warwick. That photo! His face looks very symmetrical with the widow's peak dividing it in two but when I covered up each half, I thought I could see two different men.And interesting too that there are two distinct halves in the book, and that the judgement on his legacy is so distinctly different as well.
Are you saying you’re using the photograph of Rorschach…as a Rorschach test? Ingenious!
Fionnuala wrote: "Thanks for this, Warwick. That photo! His face looks very symmetrical with the widow's peak dividing it in two but when I covered up each half, I thought I could see two different men.And interes..."
ROFL. :-)
It's so true, that picture really is weirdly different on each side!
Fascinating - especially that he was more interested in the sort of shapes people saw, rather than if they described obviously happy or sinister things.
Yes, that kind of schema about how to parse someone’s responses is exactly what made it a proper replicable “test”, in Rorschach’s eyes, rather than just an interpretative exercise.
I'm glad his images are no longer used diagnostically, as the first thought to come to mind in your example above was "crab parts," which signify a deeply indecisive nature (neither strictly animate nor inanimate, silent as to male or female, etc.)The two green things at the bottom look very much like inflamed appendices, though, so perhaps I should write a book on how this influential figure was able to foresee his own death.
Yes, I see shrimps and crab-things under the Eiffel Tower, and imagine a scene where a load of sealife is rising up in the Seine. Happily, I have no idea what this says about us.Incidentally, it's crucial to doing the test in lab conditions that you've never seen the ten images before, which is why clinical psychologists don't like the images to be reprinted elsewhere. I think Searls compromises by reproducing two or three of them but leaving the rest unprinted.
