Scan barcode
anniegroover's review against another edition
2.0
While the story was interesting, I got bogged down in the middle. I've set it aside for now, and I'm not sure I'll pick it up again. Mostly because I read this article this morning, and I've only got room for about 2000 more books until I croak: http://lithub.com/how-many-books-will-you-read-before-you-die/
szeglin's review against another edition
4.0
I received an ARC of this book through a Goodreads giveaway.
The Inkblots is really two books in one. The first section is a biography of Hermann Rorschach the man. It provides insight into his scientific and artistic background, both of which contributed to his development of the inkblots. Rorschach never saw the blots as a "test," but rather an experiment--a tool to gain a deeper understanding on a patient's outlook on the world. Unfortunately, Rorschach died at the young age of 37, a mere year after publishing his book on his inkblots.
At this point the book switches gears and becomes a history of the use of the inkblot test, particularly in the United States. Searls relates the shifting attitudes towards psychiatry (and authority figures more broadly) to the changes in the way the Rorschach test has been regarded.
The book is well written and engaging. Recommended for those interested in the development of psychiatry.
wanderlustsleeping's review against another edition
3.0
A very interesting history about a subject I've of course heard of (who hasn't), but before never realized I knew nothing of its true origins. I saw this book in a bookstore a few months back and literally went "oh!" outloud.
I'm very glad I picked it up, as I feel as if some kind of important (yet niche, yet not really niche?) gap in my knowledge of psychology was filled, even if minuscule in size. Regarding the writing, the book could have been 50-80 pages shorter, as while I appreciate intermittent summaries of what was just discussed in my nonfiction books most of them in here were unnecessary and just felt like the author was trying to increase his word count.
Overall good, but nothing special.
I'm very glad I picked it up, as I feel as if some kind of important (yet niche, yet not really niche?) gap in my knowledge of psychology was filled, even if minuscule in size. Regarding the writing, the book could have been 50-80 pages shorter, as while I appreciate intermittent summaries of what was just discussed in my nonfiction books most of them in here were unnecessary and just felt like the author was trying to increase his word count.
Overall good, but nothing special.
miklosha's review against another edition
4.0
This book can really be divided into two sections. The first a history of Hermann Rorschach and his early life as a psychiatrist in Europe. His contemporaries being the apprentices of Jung and Freud. This half is fascinating for its biographical significance and illuminates a rarely studied man who contributed so much to the study if Psychology.
The second half is a history of the Rorschach test in all its glory; scoring, administration, and efficacy. The author attempts to be impartial about its usage but clearly comes down on the side of "it's gotta be helpful on some level, right?" in response to critics cited in the book. The author does do a great job of outlining both the strengths and weaknesses of the projective test, and attempts to strike a middle ground with discussions of the newer iterations.
Overall, the book is well thought out and interesting. A lay reader may lose interest, so someone who has an understanding of the Rorschach (taker or tester) would certainly benefit from reading it.
The second half is a history of the Rorschach test in all its glory; scoring, administration, and efficacy. The author attempts to be impartial about its usage but clearly comes down on the side of "it's gotta be helpful on some level, right?" in response to critics cited in the book. The author does do a great job of outlining both the strengths and weaknesses of the projective test, and attempts to strike a middle ground with discussions of the newer iterations.
Overall, the book is well thought out and interesting. A lay reader may lose interest, so someone who has an understanding of the Rorschach (taker or tester) would certainly benefit from reading it.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
3.0
Occasionally interesting, gradually more muddled; NOT "captivating"
There's not a lot of "there" there in this book.
In part, that's due to Rorschach dying young, his book with inkblots and explanation just having been published and taking a decade to take off, Rorschach apparently in the middle of changing his mind about some interpretive issues, a wife who apparently destroyed a fair amount of their correspondence, and him having no living descendants.
So, half the book is about Rorschach, and half is about the inkblots after his death.
The first half is a decent four stars, given the material Searls had, but he probably could have mined a bit more out of that. Was there nothing more available about Rorschach's parents and his childhood? This IS a book about a famous — well, famous for his test — psychiatrist, and trying to find more from his childhood about what made him tick would be quite relevant.
The second half?
2.5 stars. We get an uneven history of further developments of the test, including attempts to quantize it, and disputes between different schools of psychology in America and other things.
There's many shortcomings here.
1. Searls doesn't look much beyond America, and there's little depth about Asian use or nonuse. He does note that, by the time of the Nuremberg trials, they were more popular in America than Germany, but doesn't say how much of this was due to Nazism.
2. If he is obsessive, as he says a reading of himself claims, that doesn't show.
3. There are some errors. For example, yes, German Expressionism influenced American film noir, but much of this influence happened well before the test became well known in America.
4. In this second half, he occasionally drops something like this: "Rorschach had thought people went through an introvert turn at thirty-three to thirty-five." This could have stood 10 pages of development in the first half of the book. I don't know more about it because it's not footnoted.
5. Footnoting and other end matter is sometimes problematic.
6. Searls can occasionally be pedantic about what the test is, and is not, and about how other things that are metaphorically called "Rorschach tests" spoil this.
The biggest drawback of the second part is that, if Searls is going to be Rorschached, he doesn't give a final opinion about its usefulness, setting aside its validity in a narrower sense.
My take is that, as a projective test, it has a certain degree of counseling utility. Between subjectiveness of client-patient relationship, settings subjectivity and more, I do NOT think it is "reliable," nor do I think it should be allowed in the courtroom.
There are ideas here that could be a better book. Sadly, they're not made that in this book
There's not a lot of "there" there in this book.
In part, that's due to Rorschach dying young, his book with inkblots and explanation just having been published and taking a decade to take off, Rorschach apparently in the middle of changing his mind about some interpretive issues, a wife who apparently destroyed a fair amount of their correspondence, and him having no living descendants.
So, half the book is about Rorschach, and half is about the inkblots after his death.
The first half is a decent four stars, given the material Searls had, but he probably could have mined a bit more out of that. Was there nothing more available about Rorschach's parents and his childhood? This IS a book about a famous — well, famous for his test — psychiatrist, and trying to find more from his childhood about what made him tick would be quite relevant.
The second half?
2.5 stars. We get an uneven history of further developments of the test, including attempts to quantize it, and disputes between different schools of psychology in America and other things.
There's many shortcomings here.
1. Searls doesn't look much beyond America, and there's little depth about Asian use or nonuse. He does note that, by the time of the Nuremberg trials, they were more popular in America than Germany, but doesn't say how much of this was due to Nazism.
2. If he is obsessive, as he says a reading of himself claims, that doesn't show.
3. There are some errors. For example, yes, German Expressionism influenced American film noir, but much of this influence happened well before the test became well known in America.
4. In this second half, he occasionally drops something like this: "Rorschach had thought people went through an introvert turn at thirty-three to thirty-five." This could have stood 10 pages of development in the first half of the book. I don't know more about it because it's not footnoted.
5. Footnoting and other end matter is sometimes problematic.
6. Searls can occasionally be pedantic about what the test is, and is not, and about how other things that are metaphorically called "Rorschach tests" spoil this.
The biggest drawback of the second part is that, if Searls is going to be Rorschached, he doesn't give a final opinion about its usefulness, setting aside its validity in a narrower sense.
My take is that, as a projective test, it has a certain degree of counseling utility. Between subjectiveness of client-patient relationship, settings subjectivity and more, I do NOT think it is "reliable," nor do I think it should be allowed in the courtroom.
There are ideas here that could be a better book. Sadly, they're not made that in this book
urlphantomhive's review against another edition
3.0
Read all my reviews on http://urlphantomhive.booklikes.com
This title immediately interested me, even though I've always been skeptical about the Rorschach test. I've however never taken one, and I hold a degree in neither psychiatry nor psychology. But I'm a scientist, so the parts where Rorschach is optimizing his test (stating he needs many more subjects both healthy and diseases, blind interpretation of tests and a standardized form of scoring good and bad answers) were among my favorites, as it seemed quite far ahead of his time.
The book however, is more of a dual biography of Rorschach but especially his test. I liked the first part (also see above) which focused on Rorschach as he's developing his test. After his untimely death in the 1920s (which is only halfway through the book) the focus changes to what happened to the test afterwards.
This latter part had great trouble to hold my interest. It seemed to contain a series of always new people quarreling about who is the new Rorschach. It is here that the test starts to falter in the hands of people who all want to prove themselves (some trying to standardize it but resulting in over diagnosis of most everyone), although I was quite shocked to find out it can be used as evidence in court (since it is not an unquestioned test). This part is also filled with quite a lot of other test and terms from personality testing, not all of it is explained well enough that it is not confusing.
All in all, I really enjoyed the biography of Rorschach, I didn't quite like the one about his test as much.
Thanks to Blogging for Books and Edelweiss for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!
This title immediately interested me, even though I've always been skeptical about the Rorschach test. I've however never taken one, and I hold a degree in neither psychiatry nor psychology. But I'm a scientist, so the parts where Rorschach is optimizing his test (stating he needs many more subjects both healthy and diseases, blind interpretation of tests and a standardized form of scoring good and bad answers) were among my favorites, as it seemed quite far ahead of his time.
The book however, is more of a dual biography of Rorschach but especially his test. I liked the first part (also see above) which focused on Rorschach as he's developing his test. After his untimely death in the 1920s (which is only halfway through the book) the focus changes to what happened to the test afterwards.
This latter part had great trouble to hold my interest. It seemed to contain a series of always new people quarreling about who is the new Rorschach. It is here that the test starts to falter in the hands of people who all want to prove themselves (some trying to standardize it but resulting in over diagnosis of most everyone), although I was quite shocked to find out it can be used as evidence in court (since it is not an unquestioned test). This part is also filled with quite a lot of other test and terms from personality testing, not all of it is explained well enough that it is not confusing.
All in all, I really enjoyed the biography of Rorschach, I didn't quite like the one about his test as much.
Thanks to Blogging for Books and Edelweiss for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!