Science vs. pseudoscience: "believers" in Rorschach test - AI needed immediately !

Posted 11/2/2012

Before reading the notice please look at the pictures like ink blots or stains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test . Look only at the stains/blots – do not read the texts next to the pictures/cards - to have open/clear mind. Do you know that there are people who believe in that painter Rorschach’s “test” is able to say almost everything about us, our personality? Incredible but unfortunately true! They should be treated as “believing” not knowing! Specialists in neurology use a complicated equipment (PET, SPECT, EEG etc.) to see some aspects of functionality of the brain, we – AI computer scientists, model and create eg.  artificial neural nets and other kind of AI systems that emulate and partly explain brain activity. It is all very difficult, tedious way to know the truth about what is happening in the brain and how it works. It is difficult because we're not going to cut corners searching the scientific truth! But there are people, some group of "believers" – psychologists, which apply pseudoscientific methods like the Rorschach/painter test, beceause it is nice, quick and  nobody understand the “secret knowledge” beside them and it is simple way to get professional status in their environment, career and eg money in psychotherapy offices. It has more in common with esoteric, divination, fortune telling than with science fair.

Before reading the notice please look at the pictures like ink blots or stains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test . Look only at the stains/blots – do not read the texts next to the pictures/cards - to have open/clear mind. Do you know that there are people who believe in that painter Rorschach’s “test” is able to say almost everything about us, our personality? Incredible but unfortunately true! They should be treated as “believing” not knowing! Specialists in neurology use a complicated equipment (PET, SPECT, EEG etc.) to see some aspects of functionality of the brain, we – AI computer scientists, model and create eg.  artificial neural nets and other kind of AI systems that emulate and partly explain brain activity. It is all very difficult, tedious way to know the truth about what is happening in the brain and how it works. It is difficult because we're not going to cut corners searching the scientific truth! But there are people, some group of "believers" – psychologists, which apply pseudoscientific methods like the Rorschach/painter test, beceause it is nice, quick and  nobody understand the “secret knowledge” beside them and it is simple way to get professional status in their environment, career and eg money in psychotherapy offices. It has more in common with esoteric, divination, fortune telling than with science fair. Fortunately, there is a large group of, psychologists, which is opposed to the use of this test in practice. Stand for sentencing him innocent fathers deprived children researchers dramas. So problem is real. Has it any connection to AI. Yes, of course, minimum the following: 1) We AI and computer specialist apply strict scientific methodology, strict scientific tools  as logic, formal languages, ontologies etc. 2) We also research and are interested in principles of brain functionality to build artificial intelligence 3) We can support the intellectual and scientific shortcomings of the “R's believers” with our AI systems – so our work should be in faster progress. More on psychological pathology, pseudoscience etc, see eg.: http://www.stopmanipulacji.info.pl/,  http://www.tomaszwitkowski.pl/899457.php lub o nadużyciach PSYCHOBIZNESU (!): http://psycho-kit.pl/.

Short sketch of logical proof of pseudoscientific character of Rorschach test – we should neverthelles to remember that in science

and logic rule (onus probandi) ”Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” is fundamental. I have not met a single strict proof of the credibility of this test, as we understand the proof in science. So I try to do kind of “negative prove”/refutation of reliability of that test, what is very often impossible or very difficult – “Negativa non sunt probanda!”.

Even so, let's get started. To the Rorschach test has features scientific, any reasonableness even have to exist, for each card “Ri” should exist catalog of possible interpretations of the test object with strictly determined, in turn, interpretation of the interpretation of the test object) by psychologists. An we already have a practical problem: N(Ri) = ∞, where N(Ri) – number of possible interpretations of the card Ri from the set of cards R (Rorschach test). Do not worry about the infinite, to let us go on, surely we can reduce to just the entire population of the world – 7 billion only! If we aaccept that the number of possible interpretations is infinite or “only” of 7 billion, then congratulations for individuals trying to create such catalog at all. More than that would have to be the absolute and statistically significant level of consensus on the interpretation of these interpretations in the population of psychologists (impossible, in fact there is no such consensus)! We are talking about the problem of mapping and identification of the model (we have black box model - we see the I / O and look for functions and set transformative entry into the exit. In such a situation, only a specific card interpretations should be attributed to certain features of the subject, I mean I(Ri) → C, where C is concrete class, categorization for test objects. “→” means only “suggests”, not "it sure that, implies, results in  etc.", we can only to say about kind of subjective probability. The Rorschach's "belivers" are willing to ascribe to "→” unambiguous interpretation "implies" in two-valued logic - and here also is the source of the absurd (we have no proof for such strong relation). Second, let us assume that we have established - for example, sees the wolf who is such a psychopath. But you (the psychologists “believers”) have to prove statistically large population of psychopaths and the control group (not psychopaths) in relation to the interpretation of the image (and so with each picture Ri, i

<1;10 >). Now, if the number of combinations was even someone too small – we have take into account  the interpretation of the correlation problem, in other words it should be examined in the same way, all combinations of images/cards R, because certain combinations of interpretation can bring some knowledge concerning value of C !!! As you can see in advance (even for combinatorial reasons, statistics) strict proof of the reliability of the Rorschach test is practically impossible! Unfortunately, the same can be true for all the other so-called projective tests, including curious Koch’s test. Finally, I think this just a merely sketch of a lack of my free time, thinking someone could develop this prove sketch to overthrow/refute validity of Rorschach test for the good of the people tested using this oddity. AI computer specialists have to strain to work quickly to support psychologists-Rorschach-“believers”'s intellect using artificial intelligence.

I demand from psychologists-"believers" strict, logical and formal proof of the reliability of Rorschach stories ! Specify the level of validity  & reliability ! To use against human beings interests they should be almost 100% !

 If as a result of the use of unproven reliability test, any innocent person is convicted, applying such a test becomes a moral criminal, and even literal !