Rorschach Blot #10

Card X is structurally similar to card VIII, but its uncertainty and complexity are reminiscent of card IX: people who find it difficult to deal with many concurrent stimuli may not particularly like this otherwise pleasant card. Being the last card, it may provide an opportunity for the subject to "sign out" by indicating what they feel their situation is like, or what they desire to know.

Rorschach Blot #9

Characteristic of card IX is indistinct form and diffuse, muted chromatic features, creating a general vagueness. There is only one popular response, and it is the least frequent of all cards. Having difficulty with processing this card may indicate trouble dealing with unstructured data, but aside from this there are few particular "pulls" typical of this card.

Rorschach Blot #8

People often express relief about card VIII, which lets them relax and respond effectively. Similar to card V, it represents a "change of pace"; however, the card introduces new elaboration difficulties, being complex and the first multi-colored card in the set. Therefore, people who find processing complex situations or emotional stimuli distressing or difficult may be uncomfortable with this card.

Rorschach Blot #7

Card VII can be associated with femininity (the human figures commonly seeing in it being described as women or children), and function as a "mother card", where difficulties in responding may be related to concerns with the female figures in the subject's life. The center detail is relatively often (though not popularly) identified as a vagina, which make this card also relate to feminine sexuality in particular.

Rorschach Blot #6

Texture is the dominant characteristic of card VI, which often elicits association related to interpersonal closeness; it is specifically a "sex card," its likely sexual percepts being reported more frequently than in any other card, even though other cards have a greater variety of commonly seen sexual contents.

Rorschach Blot #5

Card V is an easily elaborated card that is not usually perceived as threatening, and typically instigates a "change of pace" in the test, after the previous more challenging cards. Containing few features that generate concerns or complicate the elaboration, it is the easiest blot to generate a good quality response about.

Rorschach Blot #4

Card IV is notable for its dark color and its shading (posing difficulties for depressed subjects), and is generally perceived as a big and sometimes threatening figure; compounded with the common impression of the subject being in an inferior position ("looking up") to it, this serves to elicit a sense of authority. The human or animal content seen in the card is almost invariably classified as male rather than female, and the qualities expressed by the subject may indicate attitudes toward men and authority. Because of this Card IV is often called "The Father Card."

Rorschach Blot #3

Card III is typically perceived to contain two humans involved in some interaction, and may provide information about how the subject relates with other people (specifically, response latency may reveal struggling social interactions).

Rorschach Blot #2

The red details of card II are often seen as blood, and are the most distinctive features. Responses to them can provide indications about how a subject is likely to manage feelings of anger or physical harm. This card can induce a variety of sexual responses.

Rorschach Blot #1

When seeing card I, subjects often inquire on how they should proceed, and questions on what they are allowed to do with the card (e.g. turning it) are not very significant. Being the first card, it can provide clues about how subjects tackle a new and stressful task. It is not, however, a card that is usually difficult for the subject to handle, having readily available popular responses.

Life is Rorschach

"We don't see things as they are,

we see things as we are."

-- Anais Nin

The Rorschach test also known as the Rorschach inkblot test, the Rorschach technique, or simply the inkblot test) is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex scientifically derived algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning. It has been employed to detect an underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly. The test is named after its creator, Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach.

The interpretation of the Rorschach test is not based primarily on the contents of the response, i.e., what the individual sees in the inkblot (the content). In fact, the contents of the response are only a comparatively small portion of a broader cluster of variables that are used to interpret the Rorschach data: for instance, information is provided by the time taken before providing a response for a card can be significant (taking a long time can indicate "shock" on the card). as well as by any comments the subject may make in addition to providing a direct response.

In particular, information about determinants (the aspects of the inkblots that triggered the response, such as form and color) and location (which details of the inkblots triggered the response) is often considered more important than content, although there is contrasting evidence. "Popularity" and "originality" of responses can also be considered as basic dimensions in the analysis.

The Haunted History Of Halloween

Divine Impulses: Christopher Hitchens on preparing for life, and death

Via atheistplanet.blogspot.com

The author and atheist Christopher Hitchens talks to On Faith's Sally Quinn about coping with his diagnosis.

The Language of Science

This is the first installment of the original series "Discovering Religion." In this episode Discovering Religion discusses the apparent conflicts that exist with our present observable reality and our past archaic religious traditions that not only seem to contradict one another, but all that we have discovered through the scientific method.

Stand Up For Fact-Based Education

Are You Ambiguity Tolerant?

Ambiguity tolerance is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way. Ambiguity tolerance is an important issue in personality development and education.

In psychology and in management, levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity, risk aversion, psychological resilience, lifestyle, orientation towards diversity (cross-cultural communication, intercultural competence), and leadership style.

Wilkinson's Modes of Leadership is largely based on ambiguity tolerance. Mode one leaders have the least tolerance to ambiguity with mode four leaders enjoying and preferring to work in ambiguous situations. In part this is due to what Wilkinson calls 'emotional resilience.'

The converse, ambiguity intolerance, which was introduced in The Authoritarian Personality in 1950, was defined in 1975 as a “tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat."

-- to oversimplify for the education of the concrete and narrow minded: this is why progressive people have open minds and reactionary people have closed minds.

One type embraces new ideas and change while the other type cowers in fear and terror.

This is also why the ambiguity intolerant views a person who examines new evidence and changes their mind as a "flip flopper."

This is why the ambiguity intolerant desire a return to some fantasy past and can only endorse simplistic slogans that don't tax their brains and confuse them.

This is why the ambiguity intolerant HATE, yes HATE, different cultures and lifestyles, intellectuals, artists, higher education, and any form of abstract thought.

Just recently I was in a debate with an ambiguity intolerant person who defended their position by confessing that my communication was making them dizzy. This "keep it simple, stupid" person thought that the mere complexity of my conversation proved me wrong.

First of all, my communication wasn't that complex. Secondly, this person was admitting that it hurt for them to think. This person earnestly believed that their inability or lack of desire to think beyond the concrete and simple was a proof that my ideas were wrong.

I cannot tell you how many ambiguity intolerant people I have met in my life, particularly in my youthful religious years. Even in my religious youth, I didn't believe in the voodoo of religion. I didn't believe in creationism or Noah's Ark or the superiority of my religion over others. I was drawn to the ideals of social justice I saw in the "sacred texts."

As I grew in age, education, and experience I saw that the ideals of social justice in my religion were merely MASKS most (not all) followers wear to hide their petty, small-minded, selfish, greedy, control freak, backwards thinking minds. Once I found myself on the wrong side of history, I washed the dirt of ignorance off my feet and have never looked back.

Jones & Smith on Global Warming

smith and jones huddle in a snow filled D.C. alley, conspiring on ways to get the concrete thinking vote.....i know, smith says to jones...let's continue to call climate change "global warming"...that way, the concrete thinkers who can only deal with the literal and the black and white of reality will decide a wicked snow storm disproves global warming instead of realizing it actually does prove climate change...shhh! jones says to smith, and don't mention the glaciers melting...we best be quiet...if they hear us thinking it may make them dizzy.

So, Thinking Makes You Dizzy?

Unfortunately, concrete, black and white, absolutist thinkers aren't really thinking. The synapses may be firing, but the connections aren't connecting. The small minded have always had problems with humor. To truly appreciate the multiple dimensions of comedy, it takes a mind that can handle the abstract without feeling that the sky is falling, contemplate the grey areas between polar absolutes without fearing the loss of equilibrium, and welcome the seemingly absurd as an opportunity to learn something new. To understand wit, one has to have wit, not be a half-wit.

The willfully ignorant don't understand satire or irony or sarcasm. These concepts are too demanding. Matter of fact, they can't even define satire or irony or sarcasm. But they'll belly laugh when a fellow ignoramus ridicules the intelligent, the complex, the unknown. They'll always giggle madly at a cruel insult towards that which they find difficult to understand. "Keep it simple, stupid" is their favorite mantra.

But that isn't us. No, we're brilliant. Sure we eat big macs, smoke cigarettes, toke meth, watch meaningless sports programs, never read anything but a fast food menu, and can't handle change, but we know we are the center of the universe and everyone else is just stupid.

Good for us. We're Americans after all! We don't need to think hard or read or do anything. Providence will protect us because we think we are the best, not only in the whole world, but in the whole universe! We're the real chosen people. Hooray for us!

Nah, we don't want a smart person running the country. Can't have that, you betcha! We need an oil rich boob, frat house bully and dry drunk failure who can talk macho and bankrupt the country or an anti-education boobette and irresponsible, opportunistic quitter who spouts empty cliches that make us feel good and superior.

That's what we like in a "leader," someone who appears as dumb as we are, but makes us feel happy, safe and secure in the status quo. It doesn't matter if they are rich and don't really understand the working person or if they are a political puppet who parrots the party line, we want someone who reinforces our ignorance dammit.

These cardboard heroes say what we want to hear and that makes us feel good without having to exercise our brains. After all, it makes us dizzy to think beyond a sound byte. We want our "leaders" to stick to their narrow minded positions even if new evidence proves them wrong. How can we believe in a "leader" who can change their mind? We don't even want to think about that.

We're too busy being overworked and underpaid to spend any time researching history or science. But we've accepted that and it has proven to be a good excuse. We can't learn from the lessons of the past to inform and equip our future. Nah, we prefer a nice slogan that seems to summon up what's in our empty minds. You betcha!

We Humans Can't Handle the Truth

"What you represent to them...is freedom. But talking about it and being it...that's two different things. lt's real hard to be free...when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Don't tell anybody that they're not free, because they'll get busy...killing and maiming to prove to you that they are. They're going to talk to you and talk to you...about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's going to scare them. Well, it don't make them running scared. lt makes them dangerous."

-- Easy Rider (1969)

We human beings can't tolerate anyone messing with our illusions. Apparently, we need fairy tales, rationalizations, and the Boogey-Man to keep us from killing one another. However, whenever one human challenges the myths of another human, the challenged human, however pious on their holy days, becomes an enraged beast ready to destroy the human who spoke outside the parameters of their illusions. At this point, the furious human will use heaven and hell to stamp you out, ignore your insights, and even kill you if necessary.

In my early religious period, I spent time with a group who I thought was concerned with humanitarian ideals, but they turned out to be more interested in having "meetings," spying and gossiping on one another, and group control than helping the poor and lonely.

When I began to share my doubts about the group, they couldn't hear it. They wouldn't even listen to me and silenced me. They had always pleased themselves by saying their group wasn't a democracy and they showed how totalitarian groups like this can be. Someone even claimed I was literally the devil incarnate come to destroy them. They increased their spying and gossiping about me. They looked for ways to negate my opinions and disregard any doubts. They were really angry that someone dared not to happily conform to their myths and even their bourgeois practices. If they could have gotten away with it, these religious people would have stoned me to death.

I didn't stay where I wasn't wanted and free thought couldn't exist. So, I left and I've never looked back. I washed their dirt off my feet.

I continue to evolve as a human being, searching for truth, eliminating meta-narratives, and constantly questioning myself.

 

Of course, the macho among us would consider this a weakness, preferring blind conformity rather than chance a change of mind. Gosh, some fascist might even call you a "waffler" for allowing your mind to evolve.