“The Mentality of SS Murderous Robots”: Quoted in Zillmer et al., Quest, 89 and n.
“average, ‘normal’ person”: Arendt, Eichmann, 26.
a joiner: A term used in Roger Berkowitz’s helpful “Misreading Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Opinionator, July 7, 2013, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/misreading-hannah-arendts-eichmann-in-jerusalem/.
“to think from the standpoint”: Arendt, Eichmann, 49. See xiii and xxiii on Arendt’s term “thoughtlessness,” a poor English word choice for “inability to think”; “wreak more havoc”: 278; “as if a criminal”: 289; “from the Zeitgeist”: 297; “one of the central moral questions”: 294; “truly the last thing”: 295; “about nothing does public opinion”: 296.
Stanley Milgram: “Behavioral Study of Obedience,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67.4 (1963): 371–78; Obedience to Authority (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).
she never said he was an unwilling: Berkowitz (“Misreading Eichmann”) also writes that “the widespread misperception that Arendt saw Eichmann as merely following orders emerged largely from a conflation of her conclusions with those of Stanley Milgram.”
“half a dozen psychiatrists”: Arendt, Eichmann, 49. Kulcsar told Michael Selzer (see note “The Murderous Mind,” below) that no other psychiatrist examined Eichmann. It now seems to be proven that Arendt misread Eichmann as well: A recent book of compelling historical detective work has shown that Eichmann was well aware of his crimes and enthusiastic about them, not banal and “unthinking” as Arendt had thought (Bettina Stangneth, Eichmann Before Jerusalem [New York: Knopf, 2014]). That Israeli soul expert may have been right after all.
not until 1975: Zillmer et al., Quest, 90 ff; “It is an oversimplified”: Quoted on 93.
The Nuremberg Mind: New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1975; see Zillmer et al., Quest, 93–96.
“The Murderous Mind”: New York Times Magazine, November 27, 1977.
a 1980 analysis: Robert S. McCully, “A Commentary on Adolf Eichmann’s Rorschach,” in Jung and Rorschach: A Study in the Archetype of Perception (Dallas: Spring Publications, 1987), 251–60.
Chapter 19: A Crisis of Images
“The Man in the Rorschach Shirt”: I Sing the Body Electric (New York: Knopf, 1969): 216–227, partly quoted in the paragraphs above.
“the tough-minded attitude”: Wood, 128.
air force scientists: W. H. Holtzman and S. B. Sells, “Prediction of Flying Success by Clinical Analysis of Test Protocols,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 49.1 (1954): 485–90.
Harrower had already pointed out: Molly Harrower, “Clinical Aspects of Failures in the Projective Techniques,” JPT 18.3 (1954): 294–302, and “Group Techniques,” 173–74.
In other studies: Discussed in Wood, 137–53. Probably the most widely read of these studies at the time was J. P. Guilford, “Some Lessons from Aviation Psychology,” American Psychologist 3.1 (1948): 3–11.
In one 1959 study: Kenneth B. Little and Edwin S. Shneidman, “Congruencies among Interpretations of Psychological Test and Anamnestic Data,” Psychological Monographs 73.6 (1959): the entire issue.
was starting to look very different: Wood, 158–174.
JFK saw “a football field”: Curley, Conspiracy of Images, 10.
“Cold War crisis of images”: Ibid.; Joel Isaac, “The Human Sciences and Cold War America,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 47.3 (2011): 225–31; Paul Erickson et al., How Reason Almost Lost Its Mind: The Strange Career of Cold War Rationality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).
confiscating abstract paintings: Curley, Conspiracy of Images, 17, 21–23.
“brainwashing”: Lemov, “X-Rays of Inner Worlds,” 266; Joy Rohde, “The Last Stand of the Psychocultural Cold Warriors,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 47.3 (2011): 232–50, 238. Brainwashing had a capitalist counterpart uncomfortably close to these terrifying communist techniques for robbing us of free will with coded stimuli, the subject of great interest and anxiety in the period: advertising (Curley, Conspiracy of Images, 62–63, 131–33).
five thousand articles: Lemov, “X-Rays.”
“Cold War–era look-inside-your-head fantasies”: Lemov, Database of Dreams, 233.
“is like a dead planet”: Ibid., 186.
“You know, this Rorschach”: Ibid., 65.
Perhaps the low point: Rohde, “Last Stand,” quotes from 232, 239.
Walter H. Slote: Observations on Psychodynamic Structures in Vietnamese Personality (New York: Simulmatics Corporation, 1966); see Rohde, “Last Stand,” 241–43.
“almost hypnotically fascinating”: Ward Just, “Study Reveals Viet Dislike for U.S. but Eagerness to Be Protected by It,” Washington Post, November 20, 1966.
“extraordinarily perceptive”: Rohde, “Last Stand,” 242.
“provide a kind of instamatic psychic X-ray”: Lemov, “X-Rays,” 274.
its old champion, Irving Hallowell: Note to Part VII, in Hallowell, Contributions, 468–69.
Arthur Jensen: “Review of the Rorschach,” esp. 501 and 509.
in 1964, a reviewer: Bruce Bliven Jr., New York Times, June 7, 1964.
Charles de Gaulle would soon: Stanley Hoffmann, December 18, 1966.
Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: Renata Adler, May 5, 1968, prompting a letter to the editor: “True, but what a Rorschach; and what a revelation. A searing inkblot.”
Chapter 20: The System
John E. Exner Jr.: Obituary, Asheville Citizen-Times, February 22, 2006; Philip Erdberg and Irving B. Weiner, “John E. Exner Jr. (1928–2006),” American Psychologist 62.1 (2007): 54.
Zygmunt Piotrowski’s idiosyncratic “Perceptanalysis”: An experimental psychologist trained as a mathematician, Piotrowski (1904–85) approached the Rorschach from a very different angle. He emphasized the test’s theoretical underpinnings and its use in diagnosing organic conditions (influenced by his close friend and fellow exile Kurt Goldstein, a Gestalt neuropsychologist, in New York in the thirties). His insistence on the tremendously complex interdependence of the scoring components led him to start working on a computer program to integrate the information. By 1963, his program was up and running, including some 343 parameters and 620 rules; by 1968, it had 323 parameters and 937 rules (ExRS, 121ff.). Partly because of his different concerns, partly because his synthetic book Perceptanalysis: A Fundamentally Reworked, Expanded, and Systematized Rorschach Method (New York: Macmillan) came out only in 1957, Piotrowski’s influence on the main Rorschach debates remained relatively marginal.
“by intuitively adding ‘a little Klopfer’ ”: ExCS (1974), x, emended.
where should you sit?: Ibid., 24–26.
Present Distress (eb): Ibid., 147 and 315–16. 3x Reflection (r): The formula first appears in Ibid., 293; the name “Egocentricity Index” and cutoffs of 0.31 and 0.42 were added in later versions of the system.
Exner score WSum6: Irving B. Weiner, Principles of Rorschach Interpretation (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003), 126–28; Marvin W. Acklin, “The Rorschach Test and Forensic Psychological Evaluation: Psychosis and the Insanity Defense,” in Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Assessment, ed. Carl B. Gacono and F. Barton Evans (New York: Routledge, 2008), 166–68.
data-driven new era: Marvin W. Acklin, “Personality Assessment and Managed Care,” JPA 66.1 (1996): 194–201; Chris Piotrowski et al., “The Impact of ‘Managed Care’ on the Practice of Psychological Testing,” JPA 70.3 (1998): 441–47; Randy Phelps, Elena J. Eisman, and Jessica Kohout, “Psychological Practice and Managed Care,” Professional Psychology 29.1 (1998): 31–36.
Even in narrow utilitarian terms: T. W. Kubiszyn et al., “Empirical Support for Psychological Assessment in Clinical Health Care Settings,” Professional Psychology 31 (2000): 119–30.
“treatment-relevant and cost-effective information”: James N. Butcher and Steven V. Rouse, “Personality: Individual Differences and Clinical Assessment,” Annual Re
view of Psychology 47 (1996): 101.
“relevant and valid”: Phelps, Eisman, and Kohout, “Psychological Practice,” 35.
“quite impossible”: PD, 192.
As early as 1964, four years: Jill Lepore, “Politics and the New Machine,” New Yorker, November 16, 2015, 42, dating the term to “1960, one year after the Democratic National Committee hired Simulmatics Corporation.”
large-format concordance: Caroline Bedell Thomas et al., An Index of Rorschach Responses (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964).
An unnerving article: C. B. Thomas and K. R. Duszynski, “Are Words of the Rorschach Predictors of Disease and Death? The Case of ‘Whirling,’ ” Psychosomatic Medicine 47.2 (1985): 201–11.
“This person appears”: John E. Exner Jr. and Irving B. Weiner, “Rorschach Interpretation Assistance ProgramTM Interpretive Report,” April 25, 2003, www.hogrefe.se/Global/Exempelrapporter/RIAP5IR%20SAMPLE.pdf; “his/her” and similar phrases emended.
damage had been done: The rather appalled-sounding Galison quotes “an excerpt from the advertised selling points of one popular” program, and excerpts from “an automatically produced case file” (284–86). Exner, “Computer Assistance in Rorschach Interpretation,” British Journal of Projective Psychology 32 (1987): 2–19; his rejection of computers appears in the last text he wrote, a Comment on “Science and Soul” by Anne Andronikof, Rorschachiana 27.1 (2006): 3. “Excessive reliance on interpretative programs is bad psychology and simply reflects a sort of naivety or carelessness by the program user and ultimately does a grave disservice to clients and the profession.” Cf. Andronikof, “Exneriana–II,” Rorschachiana 29 (2008): 82 and 97–98.
started praising the rigor: Wood, 212–13.
“Best of all”: Hertz, “Rorschachbound,” 408.
“bookkeepers’ manuals”: Exner, “The Present Status and Future of the Rorschach,” Revista Portuguesa de Psicologia 35 (2001): 7–26; Andronikof, “Exneriana–II,” 99, emended.
1968 survey: M. H. Thelen et al., “Attitudes of Academic Clinical Psychologists toward Projective Techniques,” American Psychologist 23.7 (1968): 517–21.
not willing or able: Gregory J. Meyer and John E. Kurtz, “Advancing Personality Assessment Terminology: Time to Retire ‘Objective’ and ‘Projective’ as Personality Test Descriptors,” JPA 87.3 (2006): 223–25.
the Rorschach fell: N. D. Sundberg, “The Practice of Psychological Testing in Clinical Services in the United States,” American Psychologist 16.2 (1961): 79–83; B. Lubin, R. R. Wallis, and C. Paine, “Patterns of Psychological Test Usage in the United States: 1935–1969,” Professional Psychology 2.1 (1971): 70–74; William R. Brown and John M. McGuire, “Current Psychological Assessment Practices,” Professional Psychology 7.4 (1976): 475–84; B. Lubin, R. M. Larsen, and J. D. Matarazzo, “Patterns of Psychological Test Usage in the United States: 1935–1982,” American Psychologist 39 (1984): 451–54; Chris Piotrowski, “The Status of Projective Techniques: Or, Wishing Won’t Make It Go Away,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 40.6 (1984): 1495–1502; Chris Piotrowski and John W. Keller, “Psychological Testing in Outpatient Mental Health Facilities,” Professional Psychology 20.6 (1989): 423–25; Wood, 211, 362n114, 362n115.
One New York City cop: Interview, November 2014.
additional volume of his manual: Here and below, ExCS vol. 3: Assessment of Children and Adolescents (New York: John Wiley, 1982), esp. 15, 342, 375–76, and 394–434 (case presented anonymously in the book; names supplied for clarity).
norms would often be different: Caroline Hill (see Introduction above) put it more vividly: “Every normal twelve-year-old boy I have ever seen sees explosions on the Rorschach, and less experienced psychologists tend to think this is a problem, but it isn’t. They’re boys” (interview).
truths but no answers: See the work of Adam Phillips, e.g., On Flirtation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 3–9.
Chapter 21: Different People See Different Things
Rose Martelli: Wood, 9–16; date of case from James M. Wood, interview, March 2016. The names are pseudonyms.
“the use of Rorschach interpretations”: Robyn M. Dawes, “Giving Up Cherished Ideas,” Issues in Child Abuse Accusations 3.4 (1991), excerpted from Rational Choice in an Uncertain World (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988), and House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth (New York: Free Press, 1994).
Hillary Clinton: Walter Shapiro, “Whose Hillary Is She Anyway?,” Esquire, August 1993, 84, and “Editor’s Notes: Whose Hillary Is She Anyway?,” Esquire, January 7, 2016, classic.esquire.com/editors-notes/whose-hillary-is-she-anyway-2/; Who Is Hillary Clinton? Two Decades of Answers from the Left, ed. Richard Kreitner (London: I. B. Tauris, 2016).
“Is the work merely a readymade”: Curley, Conspiracy of Images, 18.
“actual, physical work”: Barry Gewen, “Hiding in Plain Sight,” New York Times, September 12, 2004.
inkblot paintings: Robert Nickas, “Andy Warhol’s Rorschach Test,” Arts Magazine, October 1986, 28; Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, “An Interview with Andy Warhol,” May 28, 1985 (Warhol quotes below are from this interview), and Rosalind E. Krauss, “Carnal Knowledge,” introduction to Andy Warhol: Rorschach Paintings (New York: Gagosian Gallery, 1996), both in Andy Warhol, ed. Annette Michelson, October Files (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
“These are abstract paintings”: Mia Fineman, “Andy Warhol: Rorschach Paintings,” Artnet Magazine, October 15, 1996, www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/fineman/fineman10-15-96.asp.
The Inkblot Record: Toronto: Coach House Books, 2000, esp. 102–103.
By 1989: Piotrowski and Keller, “Psychological Testing”; B. Ritzler and B. Alter, “Rorschach Teaching in APA-Approved Clinical Graduate Programs: Ten Years Later,” JPA 50.1 (1986): 44–49.
solidly in second again: W. J. Camara, J. S. Nathan, and A. E. Puente, “Psychological Test Usage: Implications in Professional Psychology,” Professional Psychology 31.2 (2000): 141–54. This ranking does not count IQ tests, two of which were used more often. The Rorschach was “the second most common personality assessment instrument in the U.S.”
estimated six million: Wood, 2, calling this a “conservative figure.”
“Is the Rorschach Welcome in the Courtroom?”: Irving B. Weiner, John E. Exner Jr., and A. Sciara, JPA 67.2 (1996): 422–24.
real-world standards: Gacono and Evans, Handbook, 57–60. In 1993, after Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Daubert standard superseded the weaker Frye standard from 1923 in most states. Expert witnesses’ testimony would be admissible only if the judge determined it to be based on objective science. The criteria included: Is the theory or hypothesis testable and falsifiable? Have the findings been subjected to peer review and publication? Has the theory been generally accepted as valid in the relevant scientific community? The Comprehensive System was consistently found to meet the Daubert standard.
“almost single-handedly”: APA Board of Professional Affairs, “Awards for Distinguished Professional Contributions: John E. Exner, Jr.,” American Psychologist 53.4 (1998): 391–92.
“Trying to decide”: James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, and William J. Stejska, “The Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A Critical Examination,” Psychological Science 7.1 (1996): 3–10; Howard N. Garb, “Call for a Moratorium on the Use of the Rorschach Inkblot in Clinical and Forensic Settings,” Assessment 6.4 (1999): 313.
four most vocal critics: Wood, building on many of the coauthors’ earlier articles. In the text I refer to the book’s coauthors as Wood or “he” for convenience; “James Wood” refers to the individual.
“What’s Right with the Rorschach?”: By James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, and Howard N. Garb, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 2.2 (2003): 142–46.
fourteen studies from the 1990s: Wood, 245 and 369 n111.
A more systematic problem: Wood, 150–51, 187–88.
a problem known about since 2001: Wood, 240 f.
hundreds of unpublished studies: Wood, 219 f.
James Wood admitted: Interview, January 2014.
Several reviews: Gacono and Evans, Handbook, collects Hale Martin, “Scientific Critique or Confirmation Bias?” (2003), Gacono and Evans, “Entertaining Reading but Not Science” (2004; quotation from 571), and J. Reid Meloy, “Some Reflections on What’s Wrong with the Rorschach?” (2005), which gives an example of checking Wood’s references in detail and finding in Wood “distortions of detail, false imputation, and the construction of a straw man….This is a tricky and crafty book which unfortunately sullies the scientific credibility of its authors” (576). The editors of Handbook list numerous other scientific articles responding to what they call the “pseudo-debates” engendered by Wood’s attacks (5–10).
But a 2005 statement: Board of Trustees for the Society for Personality Assessment, “The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice,” JPA 85.2 (2005): 219–37. A 2010 follow-up article reaches similar conclusions: Anthony D. Sciara, “The Rorschach Comprehensive System Use in the Forensic Setting,” Rorschach Training Programs, n.d., accessed July 11, 2016, www.rorschachtraining.com/the-rorschach-comprehensive-system-use-in-the-forensic-setting.
cited three times more frequently: Reid Meloy, “The Authority of the Rorschach: An Update,” in Gacone and Evans, Handbook, 79–87, which concludes (85) that either Wood’s criticisms have “paradoxically resulted in a much firmer scientific footing for the Rorschach” or the debates “have largely gone unnoticed” by both forensic psychologists and the appellate courts. When, on the other hand, the test was misused, the psychologist’s conclusions “were considered unfounded and speculative” and rejected by the court.
“Rorschach cult”: Wood, 300, 318–19, 323.
The Inkblots Page 46
