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

Corruption probes, presidential regrets, and other breaking news occupied headlines this week, but a mighty big science phenomena dwarfed those earthly concerns. After a busy seven days, take a look at the latest—and some ancient news, too—in the Buzz Week in Review.

An eclipse to remember
Earthlings won't see another solar eclipse like the one that darkened Asia this week for another 123 years, but that's soon enough for some. Millions ventured outside to enjoy the six-minute plus blackout, with astronomy experts gathering in Shanghai (which reportedly offered the "best views"), Japanese party planners setting up a music festival for the occasion, and passengers chartering a plane in India for a closer view. The prospect of being submerged in darkness, though, unleashed old superstitions, as some shut themselves indoors, cleansed their sins in the Ganges River, or prayed against bad omens. The event may have come and gone, but video and photos abound.

Another new Dragon species?
The Komodo dragon has had a busy year. First, studies of its venomous bite upgraded the lizard to an elite poisonous group occupied only by the Gila monster and the Mexican beaded lizard. Now the Komodo's got new kin: German scientists stumbled upon a new (to human beings) species of mangrove monitor lizard in the Talaud Islands. The discovery of the Varanus lirungensis (which is also related to the crocodile monitor) points to a huge predator diversity in Indonesia. So watch where you step!

The other big bang?
The theory about space rocks wiping out Ice Age species just got another boost: It turns out the first human inhabitants may have also been hit. Rare "nano-sized diamonds" that form under extremely hot fires are evidence that space rocks hit the North American continent about 13,000 years ago. Unfortunately, some pygmy mammoth (a smaller version of the woolly mammoth) and a group called the Clovis people happened to be in the line of fire. The galactic slam, plus "overhunting and climate change," created what one researcher called a "perfect storm" that wiped out the Ice Age population. The findings swelled searches on Yahoo! for the prehistoric "clovis people," so named because of artifacts first found in Clovis, New Mexico. For more on the mastodon hunters and the first Americans, check out this 2007 LiveScience article.

Also buzzing this week...

• China's been busy, caring for the first panda born from frozen sperm and making mice from connective tissue.
• The world's biggest telescope: Coming in about a decade to a Hawaiian volcano near you...
• Did a modern human accidentally kill a Neanderthal? The investigation continues...

 

Filed under: Animals, Science, Astronomy, Week in Review

In spring, a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of love. In science, it turns to spermatozoa. A bevy of studies on male reproductive cells has been unleashed in the past few weeks. To wit:

• Quantity improves quality: Heard at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, an Australian researcher claimed conception rates improved with a steady sexual diet, rather than throttling back for maximum effect.


• Delivering more than coals from Newcastle: The Newcastle University of England bragged in the journal Stem Cells and Development about creating human sperm cells from embryonic stem cells. Dubious party-poopers wanted to see them to believe it—and "in high resolution." The British researchers admit they need several more years "to improve the techniques" for a truer facsimile.


• Fowl is fair and fair is fowl: The Proceedings of the Royal Society B published a study that took an awful close look at red junglefowl, which apparently could "adjust the speed and effectiveness of their sperm" based on how fair the female.


• The prettier the package, the lighter the load: More English researchers will share their observations in "American Naturalist" journal that, as Science Daily sums up, "attractive males" have a lesser "sperm load." The theory goes, the better-looking the male (whatever the species), the higher the odds he'll get a female, so he doesn't have to try as hard.
  
  Conversely, "less attractive males" have to "make the most of their meagre opportunities." Look for the September issue, under the gripping title, "The evolution of continuous variation in ejaculate expenditure strategy."

 

Filed under: Science