Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Abnormal #7
Get more templates from
Like all psych assessments they only suggest a diagnosis
A note about the Myers-Briggs
It has no scientific validity, support or respect.
And even the site of the Myers-Briggs business:
We will talk about this is class, but notice that the commercial website (.org is something you purchase) does not reference any scientific studies, journal articles, academic institutions in support of their claims - you have to buy the manual to see if they do there.
"It's 2014. Thousands of professional psychologists have evaluated the century-old Myers-Briggs, found it to be inaccurate and arbitrary, and devised better systems for evaluating personality. Let's stop using this outdated measure — which has about as much scientific validity as your astrological sign — and move on to something else." Joseph Stromberg - read the full article here:
In a review of the book,
What's Wrong with the Rorschach?
"The Epilogue suggests their ultimate befuddlement: How could or does the Rorschach Test maintain its endurance and clinical popularity? As clinicians persist in using the test despite the depredations of managed care and the criticisms of Wood, et al. and their ilk, there must be some other reason beyond fad, mendacity, or self-serving economic motivation. Here the authors appear clueless."
= Argumentum ad Populum
Bubble of concern:
I tracked the source of this quote from page 85 of your text:
"Evidence exists to support the predictive validity of some Rorschach scores with respect to thought disturbance, psychotherapy prognosis, and dependency" (Lilienfield, Wood & Garb, 2000)
Is this is an accurate reflection of what the source says?
Analogue tests: meant to reflect real-life in the lab.
No test allows us to directly measure these.
Immensely helpful for neurological disorders, but must be used with great caution for psych disorders.