Top 10 Inkblot Test Cards

Published on December 8, 2007 - 185 Comments

The Rorscach test (commonly known as the inkblot test) is used by the psychiatric world to help determine a person’s mental state. It is very common but very controversial. I have managed to obtain copies of all of the inkblots and believe we are the first site to do so - so by reading this list you are part of history in the making! This list will tell you what the therapist is looking for and it should help you to pass as “sane”.

The cards are placed in your hand one by one and always in the sequence shown below. There are ten cards in total. The therapist will not give you any help and will generally start by telling that you can do anything with the cards - for example flip them, or rotate them. As you respond, the therapist will take notes (either using the special shorthand designed for the test, or in long hand). Often they will tape record the session.

You should hold the cards steady and upright - flipping or rotating will be marked against you (though in some cases an examiner may mark you down for not doing so). Your responses should not be overly sexual and you should only name positive images - negative images mark against you. For example, it is better to see two rabbits playing than two vampires fighting. Butterflies, people holding hands, leaves, mountains, etc are all generally considered to be “safe” responses (although nothing is guaranteed when taking the Rorschach). You will also be marked down for taking too long to answer, or not taking long enough to have studied the card properly.

“Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless.” (Bartol, 1983).

Here then, are the official full color inkblot cards. Use the comments to tell us what you see in each one.

1. Plate I

Possible Sexual Imagery: Breasts, primarily the rounded areas at the top of the image.

2. Plate II

Possible Sexual Imagery: Male sex organ at top center or, in some cases, a vagina (at the center near the bottom).

3. Plate III

Possible Sexual Imagery: Male sex organs and female breasts, right about where you would expect to find them.

4. Plate IV

Possible Sexual Imagery: A pair of male sex organs, typically seen at the top of the image. Some subjects may instead visualize a vagina in the upper center of the blot. This card may also be seen as viewing a person from below or a male figure with an enormous sex organ.

5. Plate V

Possible Sexual Imagery: A pair of male sex organs at the very top of the inkblot. The vast majority of test subjects will see a bat- or bird-like figure. This is by far the most common response.

6. Plate VI

Possible Sexual Imagery: The head of the male sex organ (the portion at the top of the card) or alternately, a female sex organ (middle and bottom part of the card).

7. Plate VII

Possible Sexual Imagery: The female sex organs (seen at the bottom of the card where the figures join.

8. Plate VIII

Possible Sexual Imagery: Female sex organs, usually seen at the bottom of the card.

9. Plate IX

Possible Sexual Imagery: Female sex organs, usually seen at the bottom of the card. Most subjects struggle to see anything in this card.

10. Plate X

Possible Sexual Imagery: Male sex organs at the top center of the card.

Sexual imagery text by SPARC.

Show me a random list...

Subscriptions

Like this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email:

If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.

ScienceAdd to Del.icio.usStumble it!

Email This Post

This list has 185 comments

1. teacherman - December 8th, 2007 at 6:08 am

1st comment y’all. i never knew that there were standard cards used for these tests.
2. Twinkle - December 8th, 2007 at 6:21 am

all i see are vaginas… but of course i see the butterflies too. the rest are just vaginas.
3. Patrask - December 8th, 2007 at 6:26 am

#9 looks like a retarded bird.
4. jfrater - December 8th, 2007 at 6:32 am

7 looks like a pushme-pullyou looking at itself
5. amoondoo - December 8th, 2007 at 6:50 am

this is cool.
6. krycek - December 8th, 2007 at 6:59 am

Does saying they all look like butterflies mean anything? although, number 7 looks like two thumbs up.
7. Juggz - December 8th, 2007 at 7:02 am

they look like ink on cards to me
8. diochick - December 8th, 2007 at 7:12 am

#9 looks like 2 pigs kissing to me
9. diochick - December 8th, 2007 at 7:14 am

and the orange figures at the top are 2 dragons, similar to the one in “Mulan”
10. Dandelion - December 8th, 2007 at 7:19 am

I remember when I did this test. It was really interesting. In Plate II I saw two bears that had lost their heads and one of their paws. The red in that picture is blood. You can see so many different things in those pictures.
11. Versailles - December 8th, 2007 at 7:22 am

I really don’t believe that these tests have any scientific merit whatsoever, BUT my psych professor said that he could not show these to us in class because it is considered unethical.

Basically, if we were to take this test in the future, our results would be ruined by seeing them before. I know it sounds stupid, given that they are generally worthless.
12. JD - December 8th, 2007 at 7:22 am

I’ve had to take one of these before. For all of them i didn’t see almost anything and most of them ended up being some type of insect. the last one, upside-down, i think i said a dragon.
13. JT - December 8th, 2007 at 7:31 am

…and this is why psychology/psychiatry is a joke.

That said, the final card reminded me of the cover of Pink Floyd’s ‘Wish You Were Here’ album. I wonder what a psych would have to say about that.
14. rss - December 8th, 2007 at 7:33 am

First of all, these cards are not supposed to be available to the public. The Rorschach test is designed to gage the patient’s first reaction to the image. If they become widely available, this can’t happen. I believe there are very strict publishing regulations on these cards, which you may want to make sure weren’t violated when this list was compiled. Secondly, I am not placing the blame on this site (which I love - I fill many hours reading the great content).
15. jfrater - December 8th, 2007 at 7:51 am

rss: they were created in 1920 so I am presuming they are no longer in copyright.
16. Versailles - December 8th, 2007 at 7:55 am

JT, as absurd as these cards may seem, I don’t think you can generalize that psychology and psychiatry are jokes. The fact that you made the comments leads me to believe that you aren’t even familiar with the two subjects.

Psychiatry, in particular, is more concerned with the pathology and etiology of psychiatric illness (what physiological factors lead to X disease?). This is usually a quite scientific research field, comparable to medicine.
17. Ellie’sMammy - December 8th, 2007 at 7:59 am

They are not supposed to be available to the public , but I have seen every one of them before, as I’m sure many people have. For that reason, I’d question the validity of the test….Also, I have never seen anything sexual in any of them….they all look like insects to me….except for the one that looks like a frog. And I thought the first one looked like a fairy looking at her reflection.
18. Ruairi - December 8th, 2007 at 8:01 am

he was making jokes? I just thought that psychologists liked to envision sex organs?
19. JT - December 8th, 2007 at 8:10 am

Versailles: I do know the difference between psychology and psychiatry and am equally skeptical of both of them. I dispute the fact that psychiatry is a science, since there is no objective science behind any of the diagnoses made in the DSM, or in many of the drugs prescribed to cure these subjective illnesses.
20. NoPunyNerd - December 8th, 2007 at 8:21 am

No. 2: Elves high-fiving.
No. 3: Waiters carrying a tray. They’re wearing white aprons and jackets with lapels.
No. 9: Yellow cartoon rodent smiling at itself in the mirror.
No. 10: Red fish trying to devour the Eiffel Tower, while blue ticks try to pull them away and little black insects push them forward. At the bottom is a totally astonished guy with yellow eyes (what’s up with that?) and a green handlebar mustache.

I’m sane, right?
21. Sidereus - December 8th, 2007 at 8:26 am

I have a degree in psychology and I know that these cards, however controversial they may be, are not supposed to be available to the public. The test is still used, though not as common. Also, I think many of the cards have been phased out, so those are ok to show. As for the ones here, I would be careful of copyright infringement and probably would not have posted any of them.

Psychology is not a joke, though I can see why some might say that about psychiatry. Both fields are scientific, but they’re a different kind of science from say chemistry, physics, and biology. Research objectivity is important, but often there are no known methods for objectifying a measure. Still, with specific enough descriptions of a condition, psychologists are able to compare case studies and arrive at a fairly accurate and consistent finding. The fact that nothing psychology says is fact, but merely conjecture is frustrating to some, but (and here I am going philosophical) how can we know we know anything?

As far as psychological testing in general, there are a lot more helpful and accurate tests out there. Tests like the Rorschach have developed sort of a bad name for psychology.
22. Monkey - December 8th, 2007 at 9:11 am

As a couple other people said, these really aren’t supposed to be posted to the public. If you see a “Rorschach” on tv or in a movie, it’s not an actual Rorschach, it’s a made-up representative of it. That being said, I’ve never met a psychologist who actually used them as a serious diagnostic tool.
23. marypalooza - December 8th, 2007 at 9:12 am

NoPunyNerd - That’s funny that you say the Eiffel Tower in that pic because I thought that it was cut shot with Paris on the top and some water under it with fishes, crabs, and mermaids. lol.

BTW, hi everyone! First time commenting, I LOVE this site and check it daily! =)
24. phunniemee - December 8th, 2007 at 9:12 am

I want to know who was in charge of making these things. Were they all specifically made to have some sort of sexual-organ-looking pattern? Because I don’t see any of them. I want to find the chief psychiatrist-man who is so out of touch with reality that he sits there painting and says, “yes, this blob here looks like a nice inviting cooter…this one, too…oh hey, maybe I’ll draw a tiny, malformed penis!”
25. Monkey - December 8th, 2007 at 9:23 am

Sidereus - I agree with what you said about psychology vs. psychiatry. I too have a degree in psychology. Did you know that there are VERY few psychiatrists in the United States who do not have some sort of connection with a drug company so that they receive extra money for prescribing their drugs? It’s not a conspiracy theory, I recently attended a seminar given by one of those few psychiatrists who doesn’t take drug-company money. He basically said “beware of psychiatrists, see a psychologist or a counselor.” Scary huh?
26. aplspud - December 8th, 2007 at 9:35 am

Monkey and Siderus: In my experience, only my psychiatrist could prescribe medications, while my psychologist was the one I met with weekly. I understand what you are saying about drug companies, but that’s true in so much of the medical field anyway.

When I was 17, my psychologist gave me a test that had 12 or 16 boxes, within each was some lines or half circles. I had to “complete” each picture and then she told me what each meant. It was pretty neat how much of it corresponded.

In these, I saw:1. insect; 2. A face yelling; 3.Two men dueling; 4. insect; 5. insect; 6. nothing; 7. two women facing each other; 8. cats climbing on something; 9. a fiery explosion; 10. An overpriced piece of abstract art, possibly made by a primate or other animal.
27. Monkey - December 8th, 2007 at 9:42 am

aplspud - Yes, that’s true, unfortunately.
28. islanderbst - December 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am

1st time commenting
#4 looks like a rabbit riding a chopper

great great site jfra
29. Ravyn - December 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am

#1. Two angels dancing in the clouds.

#2 Two kids playing either patty-cake or London bridge (where they are forming the bridge) in the sunset

#3 A man wearing a black tuxedo coat, a white shirt, a red bow, and red suspenders with his arms stretched into the air. (veiw of torso only.

#4 A long road running between two large hills.

#5 A cawing crow

#6 A dragonfly flying out the large slightly open gates of a labrynth.

#7 Rolled out sugar cookie dough after all the shapes are cut out but before re-rolling the to make more cutouts.

#8 Two butterflies dancing in a flower bush

#9 Autumn leaves

#10 A tropical beach with palm trees and sunbathers.
30. Tim - December 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am

I don’t know how anyone can see ‘male sex organs’ or vaginas… And I’m obsessed with sex, so some people must be REALLY screwed up about it?
31. Sarah - December 8th, 2007 at 10:54 am

1. 2 chiwawas trying to kill a cat

2. 2 bleeding dying people giving eachother a high five

3. an angry cow with a butterly on its head

4. a donkey head

5. mothzilla or whatever that thing is called lol

6. a sword cutting through a puddle or something

7. two angry catapillars about to bitch slap eachother lol

8. a pregnate ladys insides with 2 babys

9. a house fire but with weirder colors

10. [[weirdest one]] a guy with a moustache having some weird device about to cut his head open while underwater in the ocean
32. siav - December 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am

hmm, i didnt see any sexual organs in any of them, i only saw
1. two witches fighting over a bag
2. 2 elephants high-fiving
3. 2 gypsies making soup
4. a squashed cockroach
5. a butterfly or bat
6. a dragonfly flying over a pond
7. two angels talking
8. 2 animals going up a slope, like a big rock at the top
9. 2 dragons fighting
10. a bunch of happy animals hugging, there are 2 crabs, a bunch of birds and two monkeys on top.

this means im insane, doesn’t it?
33. Emily - December 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am

yeah i don’t see anything in any of these except ink on paper.
34. jesse - December 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am

why are they all sexual ? i thought there were other catagories
35. Jessica - December 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am

1. an animal face, like a wolf.
2. two lawn gnomes playing patty cake.
3. two girls dancing provocatively and holding onto a boom box between them, the red parts are music notes.
4. a little cartoon-like dwarf with big feet and a really long beard. It reminds me of a WOW dwarf.
5. a bat.
6. an angel on top of a weird christmas tree.
7. a weird curved caterpillar thing with two bunny heads.
8. a teapot.
9. two snails, touching belly to belly.
10. a weird-looking crab.
36. Nelia - December 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am

1: Two winged figures (faries) touching hands and feet
2. Two figures in hats playing patty cake
3. I read what I wasn’t supposed to see first, so not that is what i see… but when i tried a little harder, I got two women with their legs spread far apart looking at a butterfly
4. two penguins leaning back to back
5. A bat
6. rocket taking off, all the stuff at the bottom is smoke
7. two fat guys touching bellies
8. A Merry Go Round with two people standing on it leaning out… which is the most fun part
9. Two dragons facing each other with smoke around them
10. Two people in weird helmets (or aliens) kissing in a garden.
37. Nelia - December 8th, 2007 at 11:53 am

Its cool to go back and see how different everyone’s answers can be from your own.
38. el duderino - December 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

1. Wile E. Coyote wearing a Halloween mask
2. Two Elephants ballet dancing
3. Two naked women pressing a butterfly against their breasts
4. Flying squirrel
5. Butterfly or bat
6. Flying squirrel chasing a dragonfly
7. Two Playboy bunnies looking at each other
8. The carapace of a Japanese beetle
9. Two sea horse looking at each other
10. My grand mothers vagina as she smokes a long, fat cohiba while wearing a fake beard and riding in a long powerful locomotive as it rushes through a long dark tunnel, in the rain.
39. Versailles - December 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pm

BTW, I don’t quite understand why there is a note about possible sexual images in each of the inkblots. There is almost an infinite amount of POSSIBLE things in the images, why highlight one category?

For example, saying “I see a man” would be classified as “Human content”. Using the phrase “the whole thing reminds me of …” denotes a location of Whole. The response “Two flowers, one on each side” is known as pair response.
40. Henry - December 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Why do you have to have “possible sexual imagery”? That is very stupid, it should just have the slides and a comment.
41. Kelsi - December 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

I saw a lot of really dark stuff…wow. Meh. And in a few of them I really didn’t see anything. Cool though, fun to play around with. =)
42. Kelsi - December 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

PS: Why is the text so small?
43. Black Lutefisk - December 8th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

I am now an athiest.
44. JD - December 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

10 points to controversy for jfrater.
45. Monkey - December 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

I see…
1. A wolf with four eyes.
2. Two weird little fat guys with red hats dancing. The white part between the two of them looks like a tree.
3. Two witches standing over a cauldron. There’s a red butterfly in the middle and the two red things on either side of their heads are ghosts.
4. An animal skin, kind of looks like a deformed fox.
5. A bat (not very creative, I know).
6. A dragonfly in the mouth of a strange-looking skull or seashell.
7. Two Native Americans dancing. The white spot between the two of them looks like an arrowhead.
8. Two wolves climbing the side of a ship.
9. Two moose standing on top of a tree on a mountain.
10. Very complicated… Two knights clashing helmets under the ocean. I see crabs, fish, and eels.
Good thing I’m going into counseling. I think I’m gonna need it.
46. Sidereus - December 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

To jfrater, I had a psychologist confirm that all ten of these are actual ink blots still in use today and are under strict copyright protection outside of public domain. Although they are sometimes shown in psychology classes, they are not to be publicized. It is especially bad that you have suggested sexual imagery listed with each one. I recommend you remove this fascinating but controversial list before you face a lawsuit.
47. Cyn - December 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Supporters of the test try to keep the actual cards secret so that the answers are spontaneous. This practice is consistent with the American Psychological Association’s ethical standards of preserving test security. The official test is sold only to licensed professionals. These ethics were violated first by William Poundstone in his book Big Secrets (1983), which described the method of administering the test and gave outlines of the ten official images. The images have since been leaked to the Internet.[17] This reduced the value of projective testing for those individuals who have become familiar with the material, potentially impacting their care. The Rorschach Society claims the blots are copyrighted; this has been disputed by others who state that the blots are in the public domain under U.S. copyright law based on when they were first created and how long Rorschach has been dead (over 80 years).

taken from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....kblot_test
48. JD - December 8th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

surfing the interwebs (you know, the most reliable source of information on the planet) it would appear that the good doctor’s test is indeed public domain due to the copyright laws of 1909. just google it. you know, for the truth…
49. babygirl2882 - December 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I can’t see anything…lol
50. jfrater - December 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Thanks Cyn and others who have given citations for the legal right I have to post these here.
51. jfrater - December 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Sidereus: let them sue me - this is public domain and people have a right to know this information - frankly, I think this is almost as bad as scientology and if my list can help to stop the inkblot test being used - all the better. I will cross the bridge of a law suit when I come to it - for now - the list stays. This site is about the spreading of information and I do not believe that suppression of information is beneficial to any of us.
52. Cyn - December 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

J - you’re welcome.

i can not imagine anyone wanting to pursue this legally..talk about a waste of court time, let alone money. i also agree w/ you re: the use of it as a diagnostic tool…something that should be relegated to an archive not as common practice today.

as for listverse…i believe it exists primarily for entertainment purposes. the really nice ’side effect’ is that it does promote discussion, debate and i think enlightenment. how many times have we read comments from people who say they did not know something off a list? how many debates have given both sides more to consider than just their own point of view? and for the most part…in a civil manner i’ve not seen in other places. (something i hope we all continue to work hard to maintain)

so keep on posting lists! controversial or not.
53. 20Fan20 - December 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

I see ink.
54. Juggz - December 8th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

ListVERSe = ControVERSial …hehe get it, sorry I’m bored
55. Ravyn - December 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Juggz: I guess youare bored. My gosh seriously though
56. Mikerodz - December 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Science is a fact and a fact is thruth that needs no interpretation.

I hoped there is a solid foundation for our psycologists and psychiatrists interpretations how their patients look these pussy-like images. Imagine some fate of those convicted felons were based on this suppose to be science.

Just wondering, if there is no other shape they can use? Suddenly I thought of Scientology… I mean nothing.
57. Juggz - December 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Ravyn: Im sorry my boredom does not entertain you. I guess i just lack the high intellect of the rest of the regulars. every site needs a village idiot.
58. jbjr - December 8th, 2007 at 9:24 pm

I thought this was the greeting card list.

Everything looks like ham to me.
59. randomviewer - December 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

lol I don’t see the lewd images….maybe is something wrong with me….all I see are angels, demons, and underwater scenery. lol
60. Hakiri - December 8th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

i agree with randomviewer…theres one that looks like a dude on a bike
61. Catriona - December 9th, 2007 at 1:42 am

Umm…if I went to a Psychologist and these were put in front of me, I think I’d find myself a new Psychologist. I saw nothing but a few abstract pictures of animals and insects!
62. NZSpringy - December 9th, 2007 at 2:11 am

2. Two elephants with red hats doing high fives with their trunks
3. Two waiters lifting the trays from a table, with red rabbits whispering in their ears
5. Bat
nothing for the rest of them
Sane or insane?
63. Prozacsoldier - December 9th, 2007 at 3:44 am

WTF?
I just see teddy bears, insects, moses with four arms opening the sea at number 6 and scenes from david lynch movies.
64. Dandelion - December 9th, 2007 at 8:09 am

I’m glad that I hadn’t seen these before I did the test with a psychologist. The outcome would have been different if I had had more time to think about the pictures. So I quite agree with keeping these a secret.
65. Mav - December 9th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

1. Moth
2. 2 Dwarves/Garden gnomes
3. 2 chicks w/ strap ons. (XD)
4. Wizard/Shaman
5. some sort of winged creature
6. Voodoo priest with cool hat
7. 2 monkeys puckering up to kiss
8. -Nothing-
9. Sea Horses
10. The blue parts to the sides looked like crabs but the rest was just blobs.
66. amanda - December 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

I took this test a few weeks ago for a friend who’s a student. All of these cards are the ones being used currently. Since I am also a student of psychiatry, she let me see my results. It is completely untrue that you will be marked down for turning the cards. It’s noted, but it doesn’t add or subract anything. This test also isn’t used on it’s own to ‘prove’ any psychological illness. It’s used in conjuncture with other tests, such as the MMPI and others. It completely ruins the test for these cards to be seen. I don’t understand why anyone would post them, or why the public has a right to know what they are. Also, your Bartol comment was from 1983. There has been much more research done on the test and it is now more valid than it was before. Lastly, if you lie on this test it comes through. I have heard this and lied on a card, and it popped. It also shows up as abnormal if you don’t see anything dark in them at all.
67. amanda - December 9th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Why isn’t edit working? LOL you can see how I depend on it. My spelling is horrible.
68. jfrater - December 9th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

amanda: they are out of copyright - but more importantly - I think your comment sounds very dangerous: “I don’t understand […] why the public has a right to know they are.” These tests are sometimes used in court cases to determine parental rights in marriage break ups - I think it is pretty darned important for the public to know that a bunch of inkblots are used to determine which parent is better for a child regarding custody.

Additionally - my policy on this site is now, and always has been, that ALL information should be available to all.
69. Ravyn - December 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Juggz: quite the oppisite…your boredom is quite entertaining….If you didn’t have boredom you wouldn’t be here, eh?
70. aplspud - December 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Cyn: Its shockingly amazing what people will waste court time and money (often public funds) on for ridiculous litigation.

Amanda: You imply only psychiatrists and patients should ever see these tests, and only psychiatrists should know the results (”Since I am also a student of psychiatry, she let me see my results.”) First off, if I had a psychiatrist or psychologist who didn’t discuss my test results with me, I would probably stop seeing that person. I have a right to know what someone thinks is going on in my own head. Secondly, your explanations of how the tests are “read” are very generalized and broad (like something a bad psychiatrist would try to tell a patient to keep him or her in the dark about his or her treatment). Third, I can almost guarantee you that if someone were actually being psychologically evaluated and these blots were used, the stress of the environment and the general situation would probably override any previous conceptions that person would have from seeing this once on a website.
71. nea - December 9th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

The first looks like two birds carrying a bug, the second one looks like two bears dancing. I don’t see anything sexual about any of them….well maybe the 7th one, looks like two people facing each other with their lips reaching out getting ready to kiss.

I think if someone things something sexual about all of them, they got sex on the brain, I am too old to have sex on the brain…haha
72. nea - December 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pm

the 3rd one is very confusing, there are two “women” facing one another, they are getting ready to carry something together, must be heavy, but why do they have penis’?
73. nea - December 9th, 2007 at 2:34 pm

the fourth one i see a person lying down on a sled, his feet are bigger because he is facing away, his hands are down just like you would have them when going down a hill on a sled.

So how am I doing, am I sane? haha
74. nea - December 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

number six is a dragon-fly trying to lift a snowflake…..

but the prettiest is number 9, that one is two seahorses in a fish tank…..
75. fgds - December 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Here’s what I see.

#1 - moster face
#2 - 2 witches
#3 - 2 tribeswomen over a cauldron
#4 - Looking up at a huge robot
#5 - bat-like creature
#6 - fighter jet
#7 - 2 dancing ladies
#8 - this doesn’t remind me of anything
#9 - two dogs touching noses
#10 - 2 police running towards the eiffel tower

I’m glad these are publicly available. The more they are considered ineffective the better. Imagine getting presicribed strong drugs on account of how you interpret these imagesd!?
76. fgds - December 9th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

correction :
#1 - monster face
77. amanda - December 9th, 2007 at 10:37 pm

aplspud, she’s not supposed to share them with me because she’s not a psychologist yet. She’s a student. Students aren’t supposed to share their test findings because they’re just learning how to administer them, and they could have compiled the data wrong. When you find someone to practice on, you tell them up front that they won’t see the results. If you get a test done from a psychologist and they don’t give you a report something is seriously wrong with that! I can’t put too much into an argument about the validity of the test, because I haven’t taken the assesment course yet. I do know that my report was spot on, and even revealed some things that I keep very well hidden. Then again, it could be the power of suggestion!
78. SlickWilly - December 10th, 2007 at 10:05 am

You know, none of us are really in a position to say what the implications of this test may mean. I recently graduated with a psych degree, but the only thing that that has helped me realize is that many more years of training are necessary to be able to interpret test results of any kind. However, that being said, I talked to my abnormal psych professor, who has a licensed practice on the side, and he told me the rorscach (sp?) is not widely used anymore for much the same concerns that have been raised on this message board. Also, to those people like JD, psychologists from repudable schools and progressive training backgrounds are putting much more emphasis on empiracally proven treatment methods. This includes the most recent incaranation of the DSM, which stresses consistency and accuracy, and treatments that have shown in both lab and real world settings to work. (Apparently, this has much to do with the takeover of the private sector by HMO’s; in order to have a patient approved by the HMO, you must have a history of using the most scientifically effiective methods of treatment.)

Psychology is not a hard science, it’s much more of an art, but that is not to say that there is not a scientific mindset that must be upheld to solidifiy psych’s validity.
79. swampsnake - December 10th, 2007 at 10:43 am

an art teacher had the class make some of these when i was in about 6th grade . didnt see anything then still dont
80. Mikkle - December 10th, 2007 at 11:40 am

I didn’t see anything sexual at first glance, and then when I read where is was supposed to be, I had to use a little imagination to see what it said I should.

I don’t get it.
81. Worrymon - December 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

@SlickWilly: You claim to be a recent graduate with a psych (is it psychology or psychiatry?) degree, and yet you aren’t sure of the spelling of Rorschach? You don’t give me a very good feeling about your degree (or the institution that issued it…)
The test isn’t used any more ‘for much the same concerns that have been raised on this message board’? Which concerns are the valid concerns that your professor cited? Is it because there’s no correct answer, that they’re too open to abuse by bad practitioners, the tests have been found to be bogus, or is it because they are now publicly available?
Your abnormal psych professor has a practice on the side? Big deal, the people who brought Enron down had CPA’s. A professional designation only means that you sat through their process (and test), it doesn’t mean that you are smarter or more ethical than the others. I’d actually put more weight on him as a professor - that means other educators found he was a valuable resource, not just that he had the best advertising in the phone book (a licensed practice, Ha! I’ve known lots of licensed real estate brokers and don’t trust a single word they say!)……

Anyway, this is another great list, please keep this site going as it is and include as many controversial lists as you can. And if you have more ’secrets’ from other trade organizations (I still haven’t seen the proof that either psych really science…), bring them on!
82. CK - December 10th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

wow cool. interesting to see what people come up with. here our my interpretations, the first things that popped into my head:
1. dragon
2. 2 people dancing
3. 2 people holding hands
4. ox skull
5. butterfly
6. street sign or a flag pole
7. 2 dancing girls heading away from each other
8. dancing around a mayday pole
9. 2 dancing hippos in skirts
10. a demon attacking a pair of pliers

strange that most of mine have to do with dancing. i suck at dancing, i have no rhythm or grace. maybe that’s why! =P
83. SlickWilly - December 11th, 2007 at 8:03 am

Yeah, worrymon, you must get a real kick out of this.

1. I’m going to ignore your assinine comment about my degree or my institution, as that has no bearing on this conversation.

2. It is for all three reasons that the test has largely fallen out of favor with psychologists.

3. I’m not trying to impress anyone when I said that my professor has a legitimate licensed practice. It’s not snobbery (which is what your reply to this amounted to), its fact. It has nothing to do with being smarter, it has to do with being more qualified, especially (as you did point out)since it means he took the appropriate curriculum to qualify him to work in public practice, which means he would be more likely than my non-practicing psych professors to know something about the rorschach test.

4. Why did you single out my comment to blast? I was merely adding my 2 cents, same as everybody else. I can only imagine you were in a bad mood and have something personal against psychology. Either way, your ad hominem arguments just reveal that you’re really just a person who can’t listen to and/or entertain someone else’s thoughts without having some gut emotional reaction that makes you fly off the cuff. (Read: I think your post may have made you seem like more of a dolt than me. Sorry but true.)
84. SlickWilly - December 11th, 2007 at 8:04 am

Oh yeah, PS: You have to go to medical school for psychiatry. I naturally assumed that people knew this and could distinguish psych as psychology when I said that I have an UNDERGRADUATE degree. Sorry for the confusion.
85. ? - December 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

1. A demon face, or 2 cherubs holding a bell
2. 2 clowns with bloody shins high-fiving
3. 2 very gay, aroused waiters in a jazz club
4. A well-hung bear that has been run over by a very big motorcycle
5. Mothra
6. A grasshopper hopping out of a seashell (or a hoo-ha)
7. A pair of Who’s staring at each other while intensly thinking of how they can better Who-ville, or possibly plotting one another’s murder
8. Otters on a carousel
9. Your lungs on seaweed (upside-down)
10. A party under the sae, and everyone’s invited
86. ? - December 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Also, this reminds me of the the joke where after this test, the Psychologist tells the patient he is a sexual devient, and the patient replies by telling him, “Hey! YOU’RE the one that keeps showing me dirty pictures!”
87. Balou - December 13th, 2007 at 3:14 am

I took this test quite recently. My psychologist, who seemed a little embarassed that this test was still being given, explained to me that what they are looking at is not what you say, but how you say it. Nowadays, these tests are used to find (additional or preliminary) indications of profound disorders such as psychosis or autism. Very crudely put: if you run out of the room screaming: the bear! it’s going to eat me, you might have some psychotic inclinations, i.e. you might not be able to differentiate between reality and fiction or imagination. Conversely, if you tend to say over and over again: it’s an ink blot, you might have a disorder in the autistic spectrum.

He told me that there’s really not much more they could really tell from this test. Implying that, therefore, it’s quite useless.
88. Daniel - December 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

How does plate III NOT look like a couple of trannies in a circle jerk!?
89. Jorgegrl - December 14th, 2007 at 11:19 am

1.some kind of bug in flight

2.two gnomes from David the Gnome

3.two tribal women playing drums

4.a bell

5.another insect in flight

6. some wonky view of a guitar.

7. two monkeys looking at each other

8.it reminds me of the china vegetable bowl i inherited from my grandmother.

9. some kind of fountain from a fantasy/sci fi movie

10. jesus holding hands with his clone in some magical land with faries and sprites dancing around them
90. matthew skarbek - December 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pm

By the way, printing these images here violates copyright laws. Also for anyone who qualified to purchase and use these cards, the posting here not only violates the agreement when you purchased the cards but is unethical. It is actually a crime to post these. I hope the admins of this website knows that. the captions are also wrong. anyone with any training with this tool knows that the captions are incorrect. Only psychotic people are known to see the images as listed in the captions.
91. matthew skarbek - December 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pm

After reading more of the postings I am actually shocked. Some people obviously have more knowledge and understanding of the cards indicating that they have training. However, they never had ethics. It is highly, highly inappropriate for anyone with any qualification to use this tool to post this and what shocks me more is for anyone to condone the cards being posted. The administrators of this website needs to take this post down. I am contacting the publishers of the cards to let them know they are posted here. By the way if people want to quote Exner, READ THE WHOLE BOOK.
92. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

matthew: the images were created nearly 100 years ago - the copyright no longer exists except in the minds of a few crazy therapists that still use this insane method to try to protect their own interests. Thanks for commenting though We like freedoms here - like freedom of speech (for you to complain) and freedom of information (for me to post this list)!
93. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Oh - I forgot to mention - if you see a “lamp” in plate 7, a therapist will consider that you may have schizophrenia.
94. matthew skarbek - December 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

here is my third post in a row. Jfrater I hope you don’t have a license or any psychology training, when the tool is purchased you agree not to reveal the content. The nonsense about “making this available to anyone” is just plain wrong. Otherwise the questions from all psychological tests would be published. The reason why the questions are not posted is because it is professionally unethical and violates psychological practice. By the way, only a licensed psychologist or someone under the supervision of a licensed psychologist can use the instrument. It is unlikely that a psychiatrist posted this here because that person would know better.
95. Catriona - December 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

matthew skarbek: - LOL ‘Tell Tale’
96. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Daniel: HAHAH! It looks more to me like a couple of hermaphrodites stirring a witches cauldron
97. matthew skarbek - December 17th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

jfrater, I now see your post. Obviously you don’t care about much or you would reconsider what you are doing. Obviously you know nothing of psychological testing. You obviously are not aware of any of the literature, otherwise you would not be making ignorant comments. You are just plain WRONG.
98. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 4:56 pm

MATTHEW SKARBEK

scroll up to comments
14, 15, 47, 50, 52, 68

better yet…re read the entry and all preceding comments.

which is an excellent idea for anyone wanting to post a comment that states:

“It is actually a crime to post these.”

i understand that some folks scan the entries and basically skip the comments completely but you will get more out of an entry if you take a moment to actually read it in its entirety and at least scan the comments when there have been so many. especially if you feel compelled to comment yourself.
99. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

matthew: if you had psychological training you would know that there are no questions that go with these cards - they are simply handed over and the recipient passes his judgement. A therapist with half a brain would not be using this outdated witchery anyway.
100. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Catriona: hahahah!

As for Cyn’s post - she is right - comment 47 is particularly pertinent.
101. Ravyn - December 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Jamie: HAHA I see the lamp now that you point it out HAHAHA….oh man that is funny…
102. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Ravyn: hehe - the worst thing… I saw the lamp before I read that I am not meant to see the lamp! Oh noz!
103. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

aside - wonder what it means if you just see ink smeared on paper?

btw…i have a degree in psych and also worked as therapist (grade 3) for the state of Texas in a community mental health center. which means i worked under licensed psychologists and we were all supervised by ’shrinks’. no one used these tests for any purpose. that was way back in the late 70’s and early 80’s so these tests have been ‘out of favor’ and out of use for a very long time. at least in this country.
104. Ravyn - December 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Jamie: We all knew you were deranged (sp) in that special lovable way

Cyn: I think the people who just see ink on paper are the ones who would be likely diagnosed with Autism or Asperger’s Syndrom. Asperger’s people tend not to be able to differ between what is there and what might be there if you look at it as something other than what it is.
105. matthew skarbek - December 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Obviously no one posting to this group is a professional so you would not know what the copyright is. If you did wikipedia would not be quoted. Cyn, I have read all the comments and initially was suprised no one pointed out that the company that has the rights to publish the cards now holds the copyright. I know rs said “the cards are not supposed to be available to the public” I guess most of the readers here are either undergraduates or have a JD. I know most people who have replied to me are either ignorant, grossly unethical, or as in the case of jfrater a gadfly. I am still going to contact the publisher. I am aware of the incidents quoted in the thread where the cards have mistakenly been presented to the public and am aware of the circumstances (mostly anger) that led the person to expose the cards. It does not make it right. Come on people, have some values and morals. Or the other thing you can do is play blotto, or you can make sure your printer does a better job on your pictures. If you have any insight you will know what I am talking about. Lets see if anyone in this thread actually has any intelligence.
106. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Mr. Skarbek..you’d do well to restrict your comments to the topic at hand and not make veiled threats or inappropriate references to peoples’ character.

jfrater is not a gadfly. granted ..i’m a bit biased. J’s awesome! again..i stand by his posting this list.
107. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Ravyn…
interesting you should say that about autism or Asperenger’s. i have a ’special needs’ daughter. and based on my experiences over the last several years of going from one diagnosis to another and more conflicting info than was ever helpful…i think those terms are just for convenience. so far, i ain’t seen nothing in the literature or in my dealings w/ the docs that indicate they have any real idea what’s going on. and i also made that comment in reference to myself. i’ve seen this test over the decades in various situations…never ’saw’ anything in them. i’m not autistic or an Aspie. granted i’m not your ‘average bear’ either. but its made me think anything can be suspect. its important to do your research but in the end you gotta go w/ your gut too. in my case it tells me this stuff is hooey. and short of someone being in a full blown psychotic break and incapable of doing anything for themselves…it also means we each must be responsible for figuring out what is going on if we or someone we love has problems. just cuz some doc says its right don’t make it gospel.
108. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Cyn: Thank you! I am glad to see an American post that because I know the tests almost don’t exist outside of America - it is good to know that the US psychological world is dumping them too!

Ravyn: I can only say that it is my new-found insanity that makes me such a master of list writing! My humility probably stems from there also.

Oh - and what Ravyn said is correct - you get marked down for saying things like “umm - I just see an inkblot” - the belligerence of that statement makes you anti-social But we all knew Cyn was anyway

matthew: psychology and psychological texts are bound by the same copyright as everything else - 75 years after the death of the holder it ends. Rorschach died in 1922 - that means his copyright expired in 1997 - ten years ago. His inkblots are not protected by international copyright law (for the record I - the author of this list) am not American and do not live in the United States. As Cyn said in her earlier comment - many therapists try to pretend that the blots are still protected, but they are simply lying to people - these inkblots are not protected by copyright law in any nation of the world.
109. matthew skarbek - December 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Cyn your right. I apologize. I will restrict further correspondence to communication with the publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. However, the point I was trying to make concerning your friend J is that he does not take what he is doing seriously. That is all. A gadfly is someone who just stirs trouble, it is the definition of a gadfly. Please read comments he has made about the cards, psychology, psychology, and I am sure you will see my point. Gadfly. I am not making threats by contacting the publisher, but just doing what is necessary. I am a little frustrated because MR. J said there are no questions with the cards. His statement insulted my intelligence, becuase there ARE questions that go with the cards. So I am suprised that you accuse me of something that you do not accuse him/her. That is why I used gadfly. Next time ask your friend to post the pictures from the TAT, they are more interesting. Particularly card 2, does anyone know who that is a picture of? By the way he is likely to say there are not questions with the TAT. Sorry to make anyone anxious.
110. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

matthew: if it weren’t against my ethical beliefs, I would challenge you to a duel, sir!
111. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

J- my being antisocial is just one of my many charming qualities but then i think you already appreciate that.

again Mr. Skarbek…chill dude. its just a freaking list on an entertainment website.
112. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

duel? OH BOY! i want pictures
113. el duderino - December 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pm

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
Don’t you people get it? You’re not qualified to look at this pictures you don’t have the training or expertise. These pictures are not some curious relic of a false religion, these pictures are a ultra reliable scientific tool, nay scalpel, used to excise neuroses and psychoses by highly trained and in no way full of shit professionals.
114. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

el duderino: that is about the best use of that clip possible Brilliant!
115. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

i agree!
116. JT - December 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm

To play Devil’s Advocate, I recently spoke with someone who is a psychologist about these tests and he pretty much reaffirmed what comment 87 said: that is, these tests are only really used to test for extreme mental disorders. I’m a huge skeptic of the psychological profession, but I have to concede that if a person sees a ink blot and runs out of the room screaming ‘the bear is gonna eat me!’ then he might have a teency weency inclination of psychosis in him. Of course, other tests are used, he said, but the ink blot test is no more profound than that. I’m not sure where you got this idea of then ink blot test being used in court rooms to decide which parent a child should stay with, jfrater.

Also, lay up on matthew, he was only doing what he thought was right.
117. jfrater - December 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

JT: go to the source article I used for the “sexual imagery” - they make reference to the US custody trials. As for laying off - I think I am one of the most diplomatic people on the internet! I am allowed an occasional outburst!
118. Cyn - December 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

i can certainly attest to that! J is one of the most diplomatic site owners i’ve ever known. damn sure more diplomatic than i’d be.
119. JT - December 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Hmmm I spent ages looking for the link and then noticed that ‘SPARC’ was a hyperlink as I put my mouse over it. Might want to make that more obvious…

Anyway, if they are being used in custody disputes then that is very wrong and I can’t even imagine the context in which that can be justified or what information could possibly be extracted that would be of use.
120. Ravyn - December 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Cyn: My son is an Aspie (asperger’s child). If he looked at these he would see ink on paper. His response would probably be something along the lines of “Someones pen broke on this paper, i can’t see the picture.” He doesn’t know how to lie. Everything is what it is and he doesn’t understand sarcasm or alternat meanings. It is like telling someone who is just learning the English language that “Get out of here” doesn’t mean you want the person to leave but that what they said is unbeleivable.

That is not to say that everyone who sees just ink on paper would be deemed autistic/asperger’s, just that it is the likely response that those who are would give. They wouldn’t base their diagnosis only on these outcomes (and they never used this on my son). But I can see where they might use it in a way to find a direction to begin study on the person. If the direction proves otherwise, it is fine and they will look into something else. They went through alot to narrow my son down (I hadn’t even heard of asperger’s before then)

It is just interesting to disect the methods of a doctor’s disection of a person’s personality and capasity to figure out how to give them the help they may need (whether medication or different attention focus)
121. ms - December 17th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Just to make a point regarding my comments from earlier, there are always copyright disputes but people should check this out, the copyright is owned by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe, AG, Bern, Switzerland, it was renewed in 1921, 1948, 1994. Just an FYI, people have challenged the copyright, however at this time no one has been successful. The test is sold by psychological assessment resources, PAR inc.

I would agree with one writer who suggested that psychological tests, such as this one are used inappropriately by others. Using this in a custody dispute or with someone with Aspergers may not be appropriate. I also understand some of the frustration people have with mental health treatments, particularly outside the U.S., where many practices are more barbaric than here.

Many of the problems with mental health are due to the lack of training by practitioners. Would anyone see a nurse as their primary caretaker? It takes years of training and practice, plus some strong values and ethics to be a decent mental health practitioner. I know I have made some angry with my comments, but if you want to focus on my poor presentation rather than see the bigger statement then you will be angry with anything I say. Notice I have just tried to appeal to the author of this list to do the right thing, and would up getting challenged to a duel.
122. Ravyn - December 17th, 2007 at 9:05 pm

ms: Using these test for mental health determination is wrong. Using these test as a starting point to find a direction to look in it not. When a mental health practicioner uses this test to start off with (and would be the only time they would use it) it only gives them an idea what to look into. It is not always the right answer but then they have narrowed the search down and can focus elsewhere. They would never base a diagnosis off just this test (not anymore now a days anyways).

Mental health is a very delicate and difficult area to work in. You can not just take an xray and say yes this person has AS like it were a broken bone.

I am not arguing with you nor against you in this matter. It is just such an odd subject.
123. ms - December 17th, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Maybe the wikipedia readers will find this discussion interesting. I think it illustrates everything I have attempted to say here.

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....._Rorschach
124. catriona - December 17th, 2007 at 10:12 pm

MS #123: ‘Notice I have just tried to appeal to the author of this list to do the right thing, and would up getting challenged to a duel.’ You were challenged to a duel after you had become personal and said you would contact the publishers! Hardly an appeal to do the right thing. Perhaps your ‘challenging’ attitude upset people more than what you were actually saying. It’s important to note ‘how’ we say things as well as ‘what’ we say. People on this site are more than happy to hear differing opinions, especially when it’s done intelligently and without attack.
125. jfrater - December 18th, 2007 at 1:57 am

ms: if you knew my writing style you would know that you were not challenged to a duel - in fact what I wrote is not a challenge - as I said “it if were NOT for my ethical beliefs I WOULD challenge you…” It was meant as a bit of joke to make light of the debate. I certainly don’t want to have a duel with anyone!
126. dangorironhide - December 18th, 2007 at 2:01 am

Pistols at dawn. 10 steps. GO!
127. weskilds - December 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am

Plate 3

I see to females standing on opposite sides of a pot. Dropping into the pot between them is a split heart and there are two fetuses hanging by their umbilical cords behind each of them.
128. Amai - December 22nd, 2007 at 7:59 am

1. birds.
2. Bloody shoe print or screaming mask
3. two women with a basin and a butterfly between them
4. giant looking down at wizard
5. moth creature
6. bullet with wings and wake path
7. sponge painting
8. lionesses climbing a mountain of surreal colours
9. Twin dragons (seen instantly.)
10. Firework around the effile tower

Is it odd that I saw nothing sexual in any of them?

I love what people see. elves and butterflies. and headless bears
129. Chillipit - December 27th, 2007 at 4:16 am

1. 2 little dogs
2. Clowns high fiving each other
3. Butlers
4. A Giant sleeping
5. Butterfly
6. Cartoon cat wearing clothes
7. 2 Old ladies looking back at each other
8. A spacechip
9. Dragons
10. Sea horses.

I guess I’m also abnormal cause there was nothing sexual there.
130. Becca - December 28th, 2007 at 9:49 am

1-Two long-eared pigs being carried by someone without a head.
2-A skeletal face screaming with bloody sockets and a bloody chin.
3-Two women doing laundry with torches behind them.
4-One large demonic face with horns. Several parts of the face look like seperate demonic faces as well.
5-A bat-like moth.
6-Two priests kneeling and holding up a glowing sword.
7-Someone giving thumbs up. Only the arms are shown.
8-The middle part is a woman wearing a corset, her head is split in half and she’s wearing an aviator hat. Two bears are crawling up her sides.
9-The bottom pink part is the upper half of a torso with arms raised but shown only to the elbow. The person has a head and an elephant trunk and smoke is coming off their head. The red part is fire.
10-Two soldiers using a lighter to produce a blue flame between them. There is a tower far behind them where their heads are. There are birds, snakes and crabs behind them.
I guess I’m normal since I didn’t see anything sexual.
131. Treznor - December 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm

First, psychoxxxx is BS, anyone who rely on these professionals are total loosers, and if you have a degree on this..oh man then you are one real dumbass.
Now these are a bunch of cards made to fool ppl.
Psychologists are nothing but freaking con mens
132. Josh - January 8th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

I see mostly animals, in numerical order,

1) bat 2) skull 3)cow 4) guinea Pig 5)butterfly
6) Dog 7) 2 Thumbs up 8)chameleon 9)bat head
10)crabs next to fish
133. Carl Williams - January 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am

I’ll always look behind the curtain if possible (ref: the excellent wizard of oz comment above), especially when a wizard appears to be scared and petulant - this suggests to me that they might be a one-trick wizard.

Claiming some kind of privilege of psychological insight is, to my mind, an interesting (and not uncommon, in various guises) leaning in its own right. I’ve met a variety of psychologists, some of them very messed up indeed. There are a significant subset who get into psychology precisely because they hope it will offer them some insight into why they feel so out of kilter, psychologically, with their fellow man.

It’s my belief that, in very many cases, for psychologists to be effective therapists, they need to engage with their subjects on some level as equals. Being jealous and precious about some secret rite is, to my mind, wrong-headed and somewhat presumptuous, regardless of (sincerely held) beliefs about the (pragmatic) ethical imperative of such elitism.

‘Course many people *want* their doctors to be high-handed and mysterious, and absolve them of any and all responsibility for understanding their own ailments or concerns, and some patients (and doctors…) are just plain incapable of sharing a diagnostic understanding. But surely a responsible therapist should be trying, at least, to help most folk to be both well and independent?

Seems to me that if a diagnostic tool needs to be kept secret, then it needs to be redesigned. Like cryptography which relies on nondisclosure of method, it’s inherently doomed to failure.

That anyone still cares whether the Rorschach images are online seems to me testimony to a profound public disinterest coupled with the “dissuading” powers of those few who have a profound commercial interest.

Moving on, maybe the world-wide web has brought us the “new” Rorschach stimulus? Pick articles on pretty much any random range of topics and one can infer all sorts about the personalities of the commentators. I imagine. And about the social norms emerging among ever-more abstractly defined international communities. I reckon that’s loads more interesting than the way people describe ink blots.

But I still think number 7 resembles a nervously peeled-off beer bottle label and the rest are pretty much all vaginas. Apart from the rabbit thing from Donnie Darko… oh and that one has a Mandelbrot set outline in the middle… and that one looks like a cartoon dog that’s been run over…
134. Carl Williams - January 9th, 2008 at 2:02 am

PS. This might interest - draws comparisons between Rorschach and “cold reading” etc:

http://csicop.org/si/2003-07/rorschach.html
135. Andy - January 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

1. Mother
2. Mother
3. Mother
4. Mother
5. Mother
6. Mother
7. Mother
8. Mother
9. Mother
10. Mother
136. jfrater - January 11th, 2008 at 6:04 am

Andy: HAHAHA - that is very nearly one of the funniest comments on the site to date
137. Veebabe - January 11th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

huh..some chick named Amanda wayyyyyy back in the little numbers said something that sounded like normal people see at least some dark imagery. Hmmmm…I guess I didn’t see any dark imagery there- *snickers* but then again, I’ve got Post traumatic stress disorder and multiple personality disorder (yes, I know it’s now DID but I can’t spell the first word).
Oh wait…with that diagnosis, shouldn’t I be one of the ones seeing sex, sex, sex everywhere?!?

My therapist and psychiatrist also said this test was highly subjective and the doctors giving it can basically say whatever they want afterwards, based on their own personal ideas. (And I live in the USA)
138. Jenn McWhorter - January 13th, 2008 at 4:15 am

Just a comment on the comment that said that mostly people on the Autism spectrum would be the ones to see “just ink blots” instead of imagery..

My 15 year old son has moderate degree Aspberger’s Syndrome. When he was diagnosed, they gave him a Rorschach test, which in itself blew me away as I knew how out of favor it was.

Apparently, Sean saw one hell of a lot in those blots, because the results reported back were (word for word quote from his IEP report):

“Results of the Rorschach test were nullified due to unusual and bizarre responses.”

That’s my boy, always rocking the boat!

Oh, and his unusual and bizarre responses? They all had to do with Legend of Zelda. That’s been his major obsession since he was a small kid. “Ooh! That one’s the Ocarina of Time!”
139. Somnambulist - January 13th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

I hate the black ones.

1. Inkblot.
2. Elephants playing catch with one of those foxtail baseballs.
3. Spider legs at the bottom.
4. ‘nother inkblot…
5. Damn inkblot…
6. Mutated turtle.
7. Some E.Coli hanging out.
8. A coat of arms: There’s a deer’s skull at the top and two lions on the sides.
9. A dragon breathing a cloud of flame on some noxious material giving off green gas.
10. Some acid-induced undersea explosion involving some eels and coral.
140. s.beavis - January 14th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

I’m a psychology undergraduate in south-east england. these cards are still widely used in personality assessments, coming 2nd to MMPI. the copyright does still stand with the publishers (the inventors death is irrelevant). It takes years of psychodynamic training to be able to interpret the reactions and responses to these cards. recent british and american (have you people never picked up a journal?!) research has showed them to be a very reliable measure of personality. Your ignorance is shocking. Whats with the made up sexual imagery? there is no specific marking for responses, age, sex, education, vocation, social class and current life stressors are all factors taken into account during assessment to name but a few.
141. Rake - January 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am

1. A double-headed priest casting off two dolphin spirits
2. Two people facing each other through glass, like a prison visit
3. Women dipping their hands in a bowl
4. A monstrous badger in a dentist’s chair
5. A mothman
6. A person casting a shadow
7. Victorian Playmates turning back to face each other
8. Lizards crawling up the side of a young woman’s dress
9. No idea; fire at the top
10. Two seahorses pursued by crabs

Also I don’t see the harm in putting this online: most of us will never undergo a Rorschach test, and those of us who do will give the same answers, or different answers if our mental state has changed in the meantime.
142. M. Babble - January 18th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Honestly, these blots are supposed to have sexual connotation? I don’t see it in any of them. Blows me away….ooopps
143. Tonny - January 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am

1. A moth
2. 2 Persians dancing, clapping hands
3. 2 English Nobles greeting each other with hats
4. A man facing a 50ft giant monster
5. A butterfly… sorry, that’s all I see.
6. A Guitar
7. 2 bunnies dancing, and the hips touching.
8. Carapace of some iron armor
9. Sea Dragons
10.Scene from Little Mermaid’s “Under the Sea”
144. HyperXenu - January 24th, 2008 at 8:19 am

s.beavis:

“It takes years of psychodynamic training to be able to interpret the reactions and responses to these cards.”

I guess your brains must be too highly trained, eh Magicthise, err I mean Beavis.

Frankly, this looks like voodoo to me. Much of the “possible sexual imagery” comes from the fact that these images have a vertical axis of symmetry and anything other than solid colour in that area will look like a vertical slit, which looks like a vagina. So what.

Now if an Aspie is typically unable to express any interpretation other than “it’s an ink blot” then that may be a starting point for diagnosis of Asperger’s. But that’s about the limit of usefulness these cards have.

And as for the argument that the cards must remain secret so as to not influence the testing outcome … well, I doubt the reasoning of this point. It’s been said many times in this thread that the actual answers given (a bird, two bears, Mother) are almost irrelevant. This must mean that the inkblot shapes themselves are almost irrelevant. The tester could make up their own inkblots and it would be just as useful.

Furthermore, any properly scientific test must make provision for detecting and/or controlling for the possibility that the subject knows the test and is, as a result, influencing the outcome. As a minimum the tester would want a much bigger set of cards from which to select ten, to reduce the possibility that the subject is familiar with the particular cards used.

If the same ten cards are used every time, then that means the Rorschach test can only be administered once per person, otherwise they’ll remember the cards and perhaps build on their previous statements.

Finally I’m reminded of the Migram experiment … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

A modern-day recreation of that experiment confirms Milgram’s original findings, that around 66% of participants go on to administer the highest level of voltage. But in the video taken of a recreation, one participant stops partway through the test saying something like “I know about this test already”. For the Milgram experiment to be successful, it is critical that the participant not understand the true nature of the test (at least until afterward). Once the cat’s out of the bag here, it stays out.
145. michelle - January 29th, 2008 at 6:28 am

hey this is cool
146. fanny ber - January 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

1. 2 angels holding a beheaded saint
2. 2 bears fighting
3. 2 birds, and 2 fish circling a pond
4. a dragon
5. a moth
6. a sword falling into the ocean
7. slices of swiss cheese
8. a tower of animals. bears on the bottom, ostriches in the middle, otters on the sides, and a dinosaur on top
9. raddishes on fire
10. 2 crazy women dancing and eating a salad
147. endomental - January 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

1. two elephants playing tug-of-war with a teddy bear.
2. two bears fighting
3. Two women lifting a basket
4. Looking up at a big furry creature from under a glass floor
5. a bat (so predictable)
6. a fur coat hung from a tall hook
7. either two old ladies about to kiss or two bunnies snipped out of tin
8. two badgers on a sailboat
9. a demon blowing smoke on tulips
10. I’m with Tonny on this one: “Under da sea!”
148. Jeane - February 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

#1 Mirro image of Rhino with huge horn
#2 Two Asian children praying
#3 Two African women banging drums or washing cloths
#4 Big Foot
#5 Butterfly/Moth
#6 Animal Pelt
#7 Glass cover that used to use on electrical poles upside down
#8 2 bears standing on a blue box with their feet on bear’s chest
#9 Magicians fighting with their overgrown nails.
#10 Pointy headed Santa with PomsPoms
149. Jeane - February 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Ok, I read the other posts and here are my untrained, unedumacated thoughts. We are the coolest people!! Creative, funny, serious, smart, whimsical, not willing to just “go with the flow” kinds. I took this when I was 15 and this along with a bunch of other tests determined that I was subconciously rebellious. HULLOOOOO I was 15!

I do have some questions though.

Who made these and what did they determine would be the best pictures to make/show? I can make these with watercolors so I am not giving them credit for their choices. As a matter of fact I just made 20 sets of them. Anyone want to buy them? You can have the copyright too!

Who has the sex hang up? Even after I read the “suggestion” it still didn’t look like sexual cards. (I think it is because I forgot what sex is!)

If I saw people of color and magic, does this mean I am racist? Or does it mean that they remind me of things I have been seeing in National Geographic magazines?

And where the heck does Santa fit in and why are his pompoms blue? hmmm pompoms are really furry balls…. and their blue… but wait, I am a chicky so the blue balls don’t quite fit in… or do they?
150. Jeane - February 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

and don’t you think that

Vertical Axis of Symmetry

would be a cool name for a band?
151. Dr. IT - February 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

The fact that you all are completely ignorant about the uses of this test is no surprise. This one test cannot diagnose a disorder or tell which parent should have custody of a child. No one who has posted absurd comments about this test is trained in administration or interpretation, so who are you to think it’s valid or not? It is simply a tool used within a complete battery of other tests that can AID is psychological assessment. There is plenty of research out there that will show ignorant people how valuable it can be. Before sounding completely foolish, perhaps you should do some research.
152. Jeane - February 6th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Ok but.. Dr Ito, who made them and who decided that these were the “right” ones and what makes these right compared to ones that I made. There is no way to say this without sounding like a smart-ass so I apologize in advance. I am serious though, I would like to know.
153. Tommi - February 8th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

For the debate about copyrights: In most countries copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. Hermann Rorschach died in 1922, 86 years ago this year. Propably Herman Hans Huber AG has copyright to the set they are selling, that propbly contains other material than just the cards, apparently written in 1948 and 1994 (reply 121), but I don’t see how they can hold copyrights to the blots anymore. Of course if most of their income comes from something, they want hold it with teeth and nails (making faulty claims eg).
I’m wondering why only now we see them published in the net in colour, I’ve only seen B/W and outlines before.

I’m glad these are out now. Thanks to the one who posted them!
We can see that they are nothing but stupid ink blots, we did those in kindergarten. And then there is this big secrecy behind these stupid blots. And some people train for years to interpret reactions to these? Give me a break. Excuse me if I think it resembles me of psychics and fortune tellers.
Picture association can be a form of evaluation, but I don’t think evaluation or treatment of anyone should be based on any secret society mumbo-jumbo, even partly. It should be based on open science, that anyone can read about. What do some shrinks think need secret mystic talisman blots for? Maybe they should have their own head examined.

Anyway it’s been fun to read what others have seen. Here’s my list (that I did before reading other comments or writing the above)
1. A flying animal of sort, a bat or flying quirrel, but not one that really exists.
2. Two ducks playing a hand-slapping game.
3. Two people cooking soup together. Yes, they have both breasts and erect penises (hermaphrodites?) and they are obviously very horny
4. A big bear-like creature with big feet, a furry tail, testicles and wings too small to fly with.
5. A bat.
6. Fur of some narrow-haded animal.
7. Couple of girls with bunny ears.
8. Two lizards climbing up sleeves of an old, pale and angry woman.
9. Seahorses, long-nosed semi-human characters wiping theis nose.
10. Eiffel tower, two creatures leaning their foreheads together. Crabs, badly drawn map of Americas.

Happy rat’s year everybody!
154. Polly Odyssey - February 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

1. A giant robot.
2. Rabbits high-fiving each other. (?)
3. Two really weird people.
4. Strange monster (I see a tail, not a sex organ.)
5. Bat
6. Guitar
7. Conjoined twins
8. A coat of arms
9. An explosion or firework.
10. A party at the Eiffel Tower.
155. Steven “The Man With The Plan” - February 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

I don’t see how every single one could be a vag or penis xD the tiniest slit or point is a vag or penis, its like that kid obsessed with drawing penises from Superbad.
1. 2 angels holding a ballerina in the sky with her hands over her head
2. Two brown bears holding hands with bloody legs
3. Two african women with the rings around their necks bent over facing each other holding stereos, the gray part from the stereos are music waves, and there are 2 hearts in the middle
4. A grim reaperish guy from the bottom up, or a dragon in the middle flying
5. Moth/Bat
6. Star of David and wings at the top or animal pelt
7. 6 continents, floating in a horseshoe shape or two bunny ears wearing a dress facing each other
8. Two pink polar bears full body clinging to icebergs, and at the bottom the heads of 2 orange/pink bears
9. A type of fire, and at the bottom the pink are roses
10. An eiffel tower, two buffalos looking at each other, two blue crabs holding olives, 2 yellow crabs, and two men holding something
156. doz - February 11th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

1. bartok the bat from the cartoon ‘anastasia’, and his reflection
2. two people dancing with turbans on their heads
3. two hostages with guns being pointed to their heads
4. a dragon seen from above
5. a flying bat (what’s up with me and bats??)
6. a dragon, as seen from undeneath
7. two rabbits facing one another
8. two cameleons climbing some sort of plant
9. two battling unicorns, on top of two people riding boars, on top of some pink crap
10. british policemen being attacked by small mammals

- does that mean i’m childish and obsessed with flying things, and that i dislike authority? maybe.
157. Adrian - February 16th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

The Rorschach is admissible in court. Decades of research have proven it to be both reliable and valid, internally and externally. It does take years to become proficient in administering and scoring them, and it’s much more complicated than all of you are making it out to be.

The workbook for scoring the Rorschach is 323 pages, while the book to interpret the Rorschach is 359 pages. Keep in mind that this is only for 10 ink blots.

Why only these 10 ink blots after so many decades? Because there is a TON of data behind it, and research has shown that people with similar mental illnesses answer similarly. It’ll probably take slightly over an hour to get your reponses to the Rorschach so just blurting out the first thing you see and moving on to the next ink blot isn’t how it’s done.

You are always welcome to use your own 10 ink blots. Use them over many decades, and make sure that people with, say, schizophrenia answer similarly over those decades. Then, don’t forget to run statistical analyses like ANOVAs, Spearman correlations, point bi-serial correlations and inter-rater reliabilties. Oh, and don’t forget your control groups. During the course of those decades, make sure you present at conferences and get published in well-known journals too. Let me know when you’re done! I would love to use another projective assessment.

This stuff isn’t as easy as you think. Stop short-changing Psychology. It stopped being a fake science a LONG time ago.
158. Jeane - February 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I think this is one of those things in history (psychological or not) that we have gotten used to seeing. Most professionals no longer use them and most non-professionals think they are more entertainment than anything else. I personally am not surprised to see them on the net. If we can find sites to build things of destruction, why not these?

To those professionals I ask you, how many answers on here would you consider left of center? How many responses does it take?

and gosh almighty, please stop being so danged sensitive ya big girls. Just answer the questions. No one is shivering in their boots about some old pictures, but it seems some of are pretty curious about them.
159. Adrian - February 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Jeane - the Rorschach has to be administered in person. Answers here are not at all long, detailed or specific enough to score. Many professionals still use the Rorschach, and it is still a required course for all psychology doctoral students in programs accredited by the American Psychological Association.
160. aguane - February 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

I think the thing that disturbs me the most about this site, isn’t that the 10 images have been posted, but that the commentary provided about them is just wrong and rather than helping the people that you are trying to help by posting it - you are in fact hurting them.

Say for example someone who has a custody evaluation reads this site and sees that they should only answer positive things (bunnies instead of vampires) and should never rotate the cards (lest they be given a demerit for it) or expect any questions to be asked (imagine their chagrin when that doesn’t hold true). That person is going to do a lot worse and have it be reflected in their evaluation than if they hadn’t read this site.

I am all for letting people have as much information as possible. But for the love of god, give them the correct info rather than outdated and/or false information.
161. GMOE - February 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

#1 is clearly a vertebra of some kind, maybe alien. The alien theme surfaces here and there throughout the blots as does an undersea theme and there are lots of animals / insects. Quite a few people picked up on the animals / insects & even aliens or robots as well as the #3 cooking pot scenario & African association but not the vertebra. Wonder why?

The thumbs up does look vaguely sexual (perhaps due to the lack of visual detail) but with the rest it’s a stretch and I suspect anyone who could instantly interpret them as vaginas or penises probably does have a problem.

The point about years of data around the use of these artifacts is valid, but does not answer the questions posed: Who made them, what technique was used, and what was the rationale originally offered for their utility in clinical diagnosis?

I would add: What lineage of psychological theory gave rise to them & their associated interpretations, prior to the accumulation of data from decades of validation attempts?

What initially lent them sufficient credibility that they persisted from initial, presumably sporadic use to the present day’s persistent semi-cult status? Was there a single influential / charismatic practitioner or client proponent, or a “school” (a la sociology’s “Chicago School”) that championed them? Or a prevailing roaring 20’s ethos that rendered patients & practitioners ripe to glom onto them?

I understand why the blots aren’t much used now, public receptivity and practical concerns have shifted along with the socioeconomic strata that chiefly provides a client base for growing ranks of psychological and psychiatric services providers. I can also understand their continuing appeal for some - there’s a mystique about them that would indeed be shattered if ordinary folk such as I were exposed to them on a regular basis.

It’s possible that there are cases in which they have utility directly linked to their aura of unfathomability, which is directly threatened by their publication here and elsewhere. After all, neither the mind, its illnesses, nor its treatment are at all well understood at this time.

That being said, if the blots are so inherently ineffable that two 300+ page texts are required to use & make sense of them, I suspect that it’s an art far more than a science and that most practitioners purporting expertise actually take interpretive shortcuts based on personal experience, precedent and intuition. Who would know the difference, cloaked as they are in in-group secrecy? That’s the danger of their continued use, especially in cross-cultural and cross-economic situations with binding legal or punitive consequences.

I don’t expect much in the way of response necessarily, so I’ll google around a bit. Thx for the good, clean, intellectual fun! Great comments everyone!
162. some random - February 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

#1 Looks like an angel with a demon’s head, dark angel?
#2 Two elephants or a man with large eyebrows gasping.
#3 A rat with red eyes.
#4 Bottom part: Some sort of beast.
#5 A bat.
#6 A flower sticking out of a fern.
#7 Two Egyptians.
#8 Some form of humanoid with a helmet on.
#9 A nuclear explosion.
#10 Some form of creatures surrounding two people headbutting?
163. optimist - March 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

1.A mask.
2.Two strange people dancing. 3.Two people with bloodstains ehind their heads.
4.Pair of dogs ears with forehead crowned by a serpent.
5.Horned devil
6.Two Janus type heads
7.Open mouths
8.Surreal painting of man`s head and shoulders.
9Two fire spirits
10.Mirror image,outer two howling.
164. YashaMaru - March 25th, 2008 at 6:07 am

how can people see sexual content on all of these?! damn, just showes a onesided mind id say.

1)eyes, grinning mouth
2)spinning kids toy
3)2 female characters, picking something up from a table
4)a pair of feet. looks like chaplins.. o.O
5)moth/butterfly (flyng insect evolved from a caterpillar)
6)a stingray, head at the bottom
7)this oe is amazing!! it almost looks like someone spilled ink a piee of paper!
8)feline creatures, at the edges.
9)an oxe, the nostrils are at the slight-upper middle=_

Top 10 Inkblot Test Cards

Related Lists

Subscriptions