Wow! Quite a response yesterday. For those that didn’t visit the blog (shame on you) I posted this image and asked you what you thought it was…..
According to Freudian theory, if you see two clowns then you have a thing for clowns or, in certain rare circumstances, have actually had a thing with two clowns.
Those who see any kind of face either have an unconscious fear of meeting new people or really enjoy chatting to strangers.
Finally, if you say that the image looks like a male or female sex organ then that’s absolutely fine and not evidence of a dirty mind.
Of course, as far as I am aware, there is no convincing scientific evidence to support the inkblot idea.
But, that aside, was it accurate?
P.S. For those interested in such things, check-out Psychwatch.
July 30, 2009 at 7:09 am |
So I either DO or DO NOT like strangers? Sounds like a horoscope.
July 30, 2009 at 7:12 am |
I saw a face, and I don’t particularly enjoy chatting to strangers, but how am I supposed to know if I have an unconscious fear of meeting new people?
July 30, 2009 at 7:13 am |
I usually miss your tweets due to the time of their posting and my sleeping. I am glad that I saw this tonight. When I looked at the picture I thought clown face (while looking where to link to the RSS feed, so my mind was half on it). I like talking to new people but sometimes dread it all and seek out trusted friends instead. So.. for me it was accurate.
July 30, 2009 at 7:17 am |
I saw what looked liked 2 hedgehogs that had been run over.
August 4, 2009 at 4:20 am
……hmm, I thought a space ship was taking off.
January 12, 2010 at 1:23 am
i saw a space ship too:P
July 30, 2009 at 7:20 am |
oh dear, I’d better seek help for a twin drunk gnome amputee “thing”.
July 30, 2009 at 7:21 am |
“Those who see any kind of face either have an unconscious fear of meeting new people or really enjoy chatting to strangers.” Aren’t those mutually exclusive?
Anyway – nothing seems to cover my flattened rat pelt…
July 30, 2009 at 7:28 am |
I saw two people. I didn’t think they were clowns, though.
July 30, 2009 at 7:30 am |
As I didn’t see clowns, faces or sex organs, I guess I must be unreadable! After I’d posted my thoughts I did notice that someone else had mentioned blood though, so maybe I’m not quite as offbeat as I thought!
July 30, 2009 at 7:45 am |
I’m reminded of one of the Deep Thoughts by Saturday Night Live’s Jack Handey:
“To me, clowns aren’t funny. In fact, they’re kind of scary. I’ve wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.”
(By the way, I saw clowns. I don’t think I have a “thing” about them. Not a huge fan, but I don’t think they’re scary or anything)
July 30, 2009 at 7:49 am |
What? Freud didn’t have a theory for all of us who saw gnomes? What kind of analyst was he?
July 30, 2009 at 9:00 am
According to a garden orniment site I found via google
“Sigmund Freud had a fixation on gnomes. He saw them everywhere, from his garden to his office. In his personal diary, he pondered on whether they were a figment of imagination stirred by unresolved feelings for his pet chicken, or whether after all, a gnome was just a gnome.”
July 30, 2009 at 7:51 am |
i missed the post yesterday, but all i can think of nowdays when i see inkblots is the Gnarls Barkley “Crazy” video!
(just noticed someone else mentioned that yesterday too)
ive always thought inkblots were rather pointless– *of course* we see body parts or faces because our brains are wired to recognise human forms, and because the inkblots are symmetrical, like the body
July 30, 2009 at 8:03 am |
I saw two garden gnomes. Not sure what that says about me
July 30, 2009 at 9:04 am
Perhaps join the Garden Gnome Liberation Front?
http://www.freethegnomes.com/
July 30, 2009 at 8:43 am |
@Michael
I saw garden gnomes too!! They look like they’re dancing…
July 30, 2009 at 8:59 am |
In all fairness I saw a face and do regularly enjoy chatting to strangers. I’ll probably end up saying this was the first “hit” that I completely agree with. I guess this is some kind of slippery slope, right?
July 30, 2009 at 9:13 am |
What about those of us who saw jet planes or space craft are we totally barking?
July 30, 2009 at 9:19 am |
Oh my the gnomes are ominous.
July 30, 2009 at 9:25 am |
the mind pattern recognises a face based on random information, it is all due to evolution and increases chances of survival. if we see a scary face we can run away or a happy face we can come closer to it, therefore increasing our survival chances. the representation of a face was formed in those cavemen, as people are social and like to group together to survive, and random survival through generations has led to us being able to have this innate ability to form images of faces. so nothing to worry about either way, and no it doesnt tell u evidence of a dirty mind.
July 30, 2009 at 9:28 am |
i thought it was two dogs with their noses touching
July 30, 2009 at 9:28 am |
Since we have a tendency to see faces in things it just shows we have a developed facial recognition doohickey in our brain. Not sure why people still put a lot of stock in these sorts of tools.
I guess if someone keeps talking about murdered corpses it might give you a few hints, but…
July 30, 2009 at 9:38 am |
So what does Freud have to say about Brian Blessed and blood-splashed bears?
If someone saw gnomes instead of clowns does that mean they have a thing about gnomes?
July 30, 2009 at 10:10 am |
Too busy writing about Simon Singh to pay this attention yesterday. In the meantime I saw various tweets pop out about copyright and ethics surrounding the Rorschsch tests which have been published in Wikipedia as well as Psych Watch. Apparently there’s a bit of a to do about putting these tests into the public domain.
No qualms about the British Psychological Society guidance?
“Psychologists should be mindful at all times of the confidential nature of test materials. Many tests are invalidated by prior knowledge of the specific content of tests and their objectives. Psychologists who use tests are required to respect the confidentiality of test materials and to avoid release of test materials into the public domain (unless this is explicitly allowed in the nature of the test and by the test publisher).”
http://www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=A83A1E6C-1143-DFD0-7E62-15AB90E2714A&ext=pdf
Maybe we have to simply admit the genie is out of the bottle. In which case will psychologists simply go and make some more blots or will this whole type of test have to be dropped in case people are too prepared for it?
DrBob
July 30, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I detect some irony in the fact that the above comment refers to Simon Singh and then goes on to talk about inkblot tests … given that many things recently written about Simon pertain to quackery and any mental health professional who uses inkblot tests is, we can surely agree, a quack.
I suppose even quacks are entitled to hold copyrights, but “it might invalidate the test” is not much of an argument.
July 30, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Flesh-eating Dragon, I agree.
Being a psychologist myself, I had the opportunity to get introductory lessons to two projective tests at University, one of them being the Rorschach. Those lessons were no mandatory part of the curriculum, but they allowed some senior lecturers who grew up with these tests (and believed in their usefulness) to give students some first-hand experience with them.
While I can see a potential use of the other test (TAT) when used sensibly by a therapist to get a patient talking, the Rorschach uses an elaborate yet unproven counting system to derive meaning from what the patient sees. Graphology anyone?
And like Graphology, which still sees widespread use in personnel selection in especially France and Switzerland, there are still people who promote the use of the Rorschach test despite missing evidence. I don’t mind the blots being published on Wikipedia – but I would mind very much when a properly constructed, evaluated and widely used test like many aptitude or clinical personality tests would be published.
The whole fuss about the Rorschach is that the prime publisher of psychological tests in Germany, Hogrefe, also sells Rorschach literature and the inkblot tables, and they are the ones chasing Wikipedia now. Unfortunately, under U.S. copyright law, the 60 year old images are no longer protected…
July 30, 2009 at 10:12 am |
I see a screaming clown face made up of two gnomes. Does that mean I am scared of meeting strange clowns?
July 30, 2009 at 11:01 am |
I saw a face, and I suppose it’s true that I am slightly afraid of meeting new people, but once I do meet them I enjoy chatting to them. But like jbrydle said, it sounds suspiciously horoscope-ish.
July 30, 2009 at 11:18 am |
I still only see the bird in the negative space
Stupid ink blots.
July 30, 2009 at 11:43 am |
So… I have a thing for gnomes, is that what you’re suggesting?
July 30, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
Maybe it was accurate, but then maybe not…
I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a study, to compare the answers to the test to what each test-taker does for a living, or particular interests? Maybe a veterinarian would always see animal images, a social worker always people and faces.
July 30, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
I dated a guy once who had a thing with two clowns. When it was chilly out, it looked like there was only one.
July 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
I saw 2 middle aged women with ginger beehive hairdo’s (looking kinda like Kyle’s mum in South Park). They’re on one knee (other knees touching) and high 5-ing.
Did Freud mention that?
July 30, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
I didn’t really see two clowns, but just two people sitting on the ground, facing each other with their hands pressed together in the middle. Not exactly sure what that means. The image did look peaceful to me also.
July 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
I saw two “Yule Lads” highfiving each other after a successful prank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jólasveinar
You can also see them here if you scroll down a bit:
http://users.skynet.be/fa023784/trollmoon/TrollBlog/files/tag-nisse.html
You gotta admit – there is some likeness
July 30, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
Two gnomes playing pat a cake. Didn’t see a face.
July 30, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
At first, I thought it was the remains of a badly smashed desert…maybe chocolate cake? Then I realized it was an ink blot, and it looked like a smashed bit of ink. Does this mean that I either DO or DO NOT have a thing for either food or ink?
July 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
i see two gnomes high fiving each other.
July 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
I just can’t relate any of the answers( possible or good or common or bad) , I don’t know if it’s only my problem….it’s weird…
July 30, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
Even though I agree with the assessment on the lack of validity of projective tests digging through that site I can’t help but notice it just seems like a huge “Big Pharma” conspiracy site targeted at the psych community.
July 30, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
I think it shows more about the acculturation of the responder than anything else. I don’t know where the responders live or what their background is, but it seems to point to common cultural experiences. Americans might see a “gnome” because of some recent tv ads featuring “the roaming gnome”… fifteen years ago, they wouldn’t have made this association.
I doubt many Ugandans, for example, would see gnomes there although they may have come into contact with the idea of the red-cap gnome from Germany.
July 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm |
I wonder how freudians determine what is normal to see in those pictures and what is not.
July 30, 2009 at 7:34 pm |
I mean the pictures are random right? They didnt plan to make them look the way they do and what to see in them.
July 30, 2009 at 9:22 pm |
What about the people that saw a turkey?
I know I wasn’t he only one!
July 30, 2009 at 9:22 pm |
The only one, sorry…
July 30, 2009 at 9:33 pm |
I see two persons in black raincoats sitting down with the flat of their hands pressed against eachother whilst wearing traffic cones for headdresses.
July 30, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
I saw two old-style Chinese people with red hats giving each other a high-five.
July 30, 2009 at 10:01 pm |
i saw a face and i have to say i really do enjoy talking to strangers… its one of the reasons i don’t really want to quit smoking
July 31, 2009 at 4:59 am |
My first impression was of a face. And…well…I like to talk to strangers. As a matter of fact, my job (which I really enjoy) requires me to talk to strangers from all over the world.
What do the elephants mean? My background is medical/science/laboratory/product development/jack of many trades. Hmmm?
July 31, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
Did anyone else see some kind of animal in a tuxedo?
July 31, 2009 at 11:23 pm |
Hmmm…so it seems I was the only person to see a butterfly. Are you telling me it was ‘all in my head’ but with no chance of psychoanalysis to dwell upon ? OH…where’s my therapist’s number…?
August 1, 2009 at 3:00 am |
I saw the butterfly; you are not alone. (I did post this response; saw it at the second look).
August 1, 2009 at 5:05 am |
Hi! The inkblot test was statistically “proven”, right? so it’s still accurate on measuring what it wants to measure. Or maybe it’s just obsolete and the theory behind it is quite shaky…
August 1, 2009 at 8:13 am |
I see seven* nuns dressed as Nazi stormtroopers torturing 2 vampyre bats with wet celery.
________
* Two of them are hiding behind the fœtus on the left, of course.
August 1, 2009 at 11:58 am |
I saw two sufis dancing.
I also saw a face.
First, put two dots, lines, marks on just about anything and it will look like a face. Isn’t this what Fritz Perls termed the Gestalt effect.
I suppose you could call Sufis fools (clowns) Bur I think it would have a different meaning than the one that you imply.
As for Derren Brown backing your book….I’ve heard Derren giving out NLP exercises to people who asked for help…..Then he turns around and says it’s unscientific nonsense… I’m thinking….Maybe he just doesn’t like Paul McKenna.;-)
Good luck with making the world happy – I’m all for anybody doing that using any method.
August 2, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
I seem to have an unconscious aversion against Freudian depth psychology.
August 2, 2009 at 8:57 pm |
Sooo true. I love talking to strangers if I will never see them again, but I hate meeting new people.
August 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
so what if i saw 2 elephants or a fighter jet?
August 5, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
I totally posted on this precise thing this week. I’m amazed they still try to use Rorschach tests seriously.
August 8, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
What, no one saw a Modigliani painting?
August 10, 2009 at 8:44 am |
I’m so sorry
The 1st thing I saw was a piece of cake or a cupcake… I’m on diet!
The brown is chocolate cake, the white is chantilly cream and the red, yummy yummy, strawberries!!!
August 10, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
Well, the center looks kinda like a spaceship taking off!
August 19, 2009 at 10:34 am |
Holy shit it’s two red haired llamas farting while doing handstands with back feet doing high-five.
September 16, 2009 at 1:14 am |
I thought it looked like 2 elephants wearing hats.
January 2, 2010 at 7:15 pm |
I saw two elephants, Freud needs to make up his mind
February 28, 2010 at 8:33 am |
i thought i saw two lobsters wearing hats and shaking hands
March 30, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
I saw two nomes giving each other a high five while seated… what does that mean? ha
April 15, 2010 at 8:03 am |
Looks like two rhinos possibly raring up on their hind legs. I suppose if you place it sideways it could be a reflection of the rhino at a watering hole.