WOW, take the actual Rorschach test here, you'll learn a lot about yourself.

[Captante]

The only sane answer is "Rorschach is bullshit". Any other answer means you are probably a serial killer.

Pretty much

 

[destrekor]

Y'all may be doing this all wrong.

It's best to just view the 10 cards in sequence, and make a relatively quick first answer, describing what the first thing that comes to mind. But then note other things you see after looking at sections as secondary observations.
And then go back and read along the attributes for that card. As you look at them again, remind yourself how quickly you saw what at what point, because it's fully acceptable to see multiple things. There are mostly just certain things they are looking for that people can't see, at all, or specifically see as the dominating visual pattern above anything else. As you note things, or remember struggling to see anything at all, consider that in your own self-diagnostic reading of the interpretations.

Most everyone can worry about how they see something in the test, but it's also taken as a whole, and individual responses only have so much weight. It's often taken to represent hard "bad" and "good" interpretations but there is actually a range, because depending on where your eyes end up focusing and lingering as you view the blots, what you may first see or think is the dominating image may not be what you end up explaining when there is further discussion based on the plots and your initial answers. It takes someone who understands the complexities to make a factual interpretation and they know how to poke and prod what you really mean out of all of it. If you quickly chase certain rabbit holes in the discussion or otherwise latch onto certain things, this is what helps determine if the card sussed out what it was intended to do.

You're first answer, without follow-on discussion, can't be the single deciding factor. I've never had the test administered but I've got to imagine there is follow-on discussion after having you look at the cards. Or do they sometimes show one card, discuss it, and then show the next card?

The latter could lead you in a way I don't think was intended.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Y'all may be doing this all wrong.

It's best to just view the 10 cards in sequence, and make a relatively quick first answer, describing what the first thing that comes to mind. But then note other things you see after looking at sections as secondary observations.
And then go back and read along the attributes for that card. As you look at them again, remind yourself how quickly you saw what at what point, because it's fully acceptable to see multiple things. There are mostly just certain things they are looking for that people can't see, at all, or specifically see as the dominating visual pattern above anything else. As you note things, or remember struggling to see anything at all, consider that in your own self-diagnostic reading of the interpretations.

Most everyone can worry about how they see something in the test, but it's also taken as a whole, and individual responses only have so much weight. It's often taken to represent hard "bad" and "good" interpretations but there is actually a range, because depending on where your eyes end up focusing and lingering as you view the blots, what you may first see or think is the dominating image may not be what you end up explaining when there is further discussion based on the plots and your initial answers. It takes someone who understands the complexities to make a factual interpretation and they know how to poke and prod what you really mean out of all of it. If you quickly chase certain rabbit holes in the discussion or otherwise latch onto certain things, this is what helps determine if the card sussed out what it was intended to do.

You're first answer, without follow-on discussion, can't be the single deciding factor. I've never had the test administered but I've got to imagine there is follow-on discussion after having you look at the cards. Or do they sometimes show one card, discuss it, and then show the next card?

The latter could lead you in a way I don't think was intended.

That kind of labels me.
The first thing in mind is just what another poster posted. All i see is ink stains and i have the recognition of a rorschach a like test.
It is when i let it sink in for a few seconds the images pop up.

 

[local]

Years ago I took that test in middle school as part of some evaluation for a private school. I think I answered 80% of them "I don't see anything". He'd say "take your time". I'd wait a little bit and repeat the same thing. I sincerely could not get the idea. Near the end I was pretty frustrated and would have liked to quit. Nothing came of the test and I declined the move to a private school.

Later in high school I was in the guidance counselor's office talking about college plans when he got called out to go see someone and left me in the office. I peeked in my file on the desk and saw the ink blot writeup. The psychologist's report of my test said I had all kinds of problems - anti-social, low intelligence, uncooperative.

To this day I think my only "problem" with the ink blot test is I suck at seeing something when there is nothing. I get that other people can do it, it's just not my thing. I would plead guilty to not being creative visually and having no artistic talent, maybe that's a factor.

I had almost the exact same write up after doing similar to you. I think it took over an hour maybe two and I couldn't see shit in the random crap images. All my final answers had to be explained to the shrink because she didn't know what they were. I know my answer to 6 was a Gar, had to first explain that was a fish and then say why I thought it looked like that. Pretty sure my answer to 10 was a spaceship flying through flak bursts from a late war Japanese fleet, that was when they used colored shell bursts to know who shot what.

 

[destrekor]

Not like we'd doubt those anecdotes here, y'all people fit in just fine here