the buzz log

Ever take the inkblot test—or at least see one administered on TV (like in any "Law & Order" episode)? If so, then you know that there are no right or wrong answers on a Rorschach test, but responses do provide insight to the test-taker's state of mind.
 
And yet, a controversy about the posting of 10 Rorschach inkblots on Wikipedia is rocking the scientific community, according to The New York Times. In addition to the blots themselves, the Wikipedia entry also includes the most common interpretations of what these blots look like—the old bison vs. butterfly vs. moth.

Taking the Test
The Rorschach test—a series of ink blots shown to patients, who are then asked to explain what they see—is named after Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach. Five of the blots are black-and-white, two are black, white, and red, and the last three are in pretty colors. (Or not pretty, depending on your view.)

The test-taker is evaluated on 100 variables, which will show what he/she truly feels deep inside—not just separating psychotic thinking from "normal" thought. One Rorschach FAQ site describes it as asking "How does someone view and organize the world around them?"

One nonprofit parenting site, SPARC, explains that it's not only what patients say in describing what they see, but also what "hand gestures and body movements" they make. (Interestingly, SPARC precedes its lengthy description of the whole process with a disclaimer, posted "after repeated letters from dozens of outraged psychologists and psychiatrists.")

Illuminating or Cheating?
Is the test's public availability stimulating free debate, or enabling test-takers to "cheat"? Depends on how you look at it:

• From the Wiki view: Supporters say it's informative—and searches on Yahoo! for "rorschach" have popped up 111% in the past week.

• From the psychologists' view: These "cheats" could help test-takers game the system and get in the way of research. And if patients peek at the interpretations beforehand, they may get in the way of their own diagnoses.

• From the test publishers' view: The test's publisher is "assessing legal steps" to have the images removed from Wikipedia, even though those images—created some 90 years ago—are in the public domain. Still, one spokesperson huffed that Wikipedia's position is "unbelievably reckless and even cynical" for recognizing concerned claims and posting the images anyhow.

But Does One See Results?
Despite the outrage over Wikipedia's posting, not all researchers believe in the test's validity. The method was severely criticized in the 1950s and revised in the 1970s. Scientific American revived its 2005 article that called Rorschach's test "frequently ineffective" as a mental health tool.

Ideally, at least two clinicians should be involved in the interpretation of the test's results, but often they may not agree. Even worse, according to the article "What's Wrong With This Picture?", research also "suggests" that the Rorschach can't really gauge violent tendencies, depression, sexual abuse in children, antisocial tendencies, and so on. Since the test is administered to all kinds of people, from convicts seeking parole to parents in custody battles, obviously a lot rides on the interpretation of the results.

By the way, the Wikipedia uproar erupted in June, when an emergency-room doctor added the remaining nine inkblots to the one Wikipedia already had. When The New York Times told the doctor about all the experts' complaints, he replied, "Show me the evidence." Preferably not in the form of an inkblot.

Filed under: Science, Internet, Psychology, Tests, Wikipedia

Britain may have invented the lightbulb, the steam engine, and toilet paper, but trailblazing the Internet isn't among the country's strengths.

One-third of Britain's population is without home Internet access. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is hell-bent on getting his countrymen (and women) broadband access (at 2 megabytes per second, mind you) in three years, at a cost of $328 million. The British leader even declared in an op-ed piece for The Times (UK) that the "internet is as vital as water and gas," and essential to the UK as "bridges, roads and railways" were during the Industrial Revolution.

Before any Americans start snickering at Brits being the Luddites of the Internet world, check this Census figure out: 62% of American households connect to the Web from home. And the kids aren't helping either: About 88% of 12-to-14 year old Americans surf, but 100% of British kids that age do so. When was the last time you could get every single teen to do something?

Barack Obama, who counts Internet President among his many informal titles, has done a lot of talk about getting every American online. However the recession will pose some problems in getting Web access to poor and rural areas. The good news is that more people are signing up for high-speed access (and even paying more for it). That might lift the U.S. dismal ranking of No. 15 out of 30 countries for broadband subscribers (per 100 inhabitants—America leads in sheer numbers since the population's huge). United Kingdom on that same list? No. 13.

But maybe Britain—and the U.S. for that matter—should slow down on all this Web stuff. The Annenberg Center for the Digital Future polled about 2,030 people and found more Americans are spending less family time, but more (online) social networking time. Perhaps all those Brits who lead a Web-less life know something after all.

Filed under: Internet, United States, England, United Kingdom

In the online world, there is no honeymoon period.

When the official inauguration hour came upon America, the biggest noontime search spike swung to Whitehouse.gov (+2,440%), shooting past poet Elizabeth Alexander (+1,564%) and musician Yo-Yo Ma (+1,534%). The Obama-Biden online team didn't waste any time directing online traffic from the transitional site, Change.gov. In the past 7 days, "whitehouse" searches hailed from every state in the nation, led by the District of Columbia, Maryland, Illinois, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Still, despite the site's popularity, Web critics have been taking mixed notice of the online bureaucratic destination.

• ReadWriteWeb marked a positive evolution by combing through Whitehouse.gov's storied 12-year history.
• Slate found broken links and called the online transition "far less civil and ... violently abrupt."
• Blogs made conspiratorial noises over the previous administration's Web coding versus the new one, implying that Bush webmasters intentionally blocked pages from search engines. CNET not only dismissed the implications, but also dared take on "Obama-praising geeks" by criticizing the HTML design and saying "not all pages successfully validate."
• When looking for first family photos, Newsweek was led to presidential pets. (Particularly ironic, considering the still unresolved dog situation.)

Timeliness was the biggest complaint. Another CNET blog nitpicked the government for not posting in a timely fashion the inaugural address (uploaded Jan. 21, 1:27 p.m.), executive orders and memoranda (Jan. 22, 12:39 p.m.). "By comparison," the CNET political correspondent huffed, "the outgoing Bush administration was disciplined about updating Whitehouse.gov." (Worse, the blog believes the privacy policy doesn't clearly state enough that a private company is tracking visitors' computer details.)

Inheriting an outdated infrastructure has plagued many an incoming techie and resulted in transition glitches. PC World reminded readers that similar snafus happened back in 2001, including the infamous placeholder, "Insert Something Meaningful Here." The Washington Post reported that dumbfounded Obama techies this week similarly found themselves plunging into the "technological dark ages."

The most noted omission, and the cross that Director of New Media for the White House (and blogger) Macon Philips will have to bear, is the lack of true community interaction (which happened at some level in the transition site's Citizen's Briefing Book). Letting the masses post, however, brings its own set of horrors, as Nieman Watchdog explains: "The virulence and low signal-to-noise ratio of unrestricted commenting on the Internet has been a source of despair to people who run far less prominent websites." In other words, welcome to figuring out how to funnel out the crackpots, especially those who proclaim free-speech protection when they actually bog down communication. The Harvard blog's solution? A Wiki White House.

The site's biggest battle may lie within itself: Making sure that the flow of information doesn't get strangled in red tape. In the meantime, with Obama's first weekly presidential address coming online this Saturday, Whitehouse.gov promises to be an online hotspot. Maybe then the honeymoon period can get a reboot.

Filed under: Politics, Cyberculture, Internet, Web 2.0