 |
| EINSTEIN STONED (A GIFT FROM A BAND MATE) |
And not nearly as illustrious as the Rorschach are the GOODENOUGH – HARRIS DRAW-A-PERSON,
DRAW-A-TREE,
and DRAW-A-HOUSE
tests. For these three tests, the
candidate is presented with a blank sheet of paper, standard 81/2” x 11,” and
draws from memory each of the aforementioned titles.
Not coincidentally, I am very familiar with the
administration and interpretation of both the Rorschach and the Goodenough
tests.
Factoid:
When I was the guidance counsellor years ago at a high school I had the
graphic arts teacher manufacture some mock-up Rorschach inkblot tests.
Several times in several psychology classes I actually administered to
groups of students with hilarious results.
(I remind the reader that if one cannot laugh at clients … then what fun are they! I’m joking of course! But wait a minute …
maybe I’m not! I could be projecting my
true professional nature. Yikes!)
Factoid too:
And in all the psychology classes that I taught over the 22 years at the
University of Regina, I administered, too, to groups of students, the Draw-A-Tree, Draw-A-House, and Draw-A-Person. And, to each of these groups at test end, I
would describe in general terms the results.
Such class activities were always formally fun and somewhat academically
informative.
In camps occupied by the quantitative psychology scholars,
projective tests tend to lack both validity (whether or not the test is
measuring what it purports to measure) and reliability (the consistency of the
test results).
However, I warm my hands over the qualitative campfires. I shall easily and briefly address each of
this credibility constraints. First of
all, projective tests do not purport to measure anything. “Measure” is not a word to be acknowledged in
qualitative analysis. Projectives tests
simply purport that clients project their momentary and personal opinions in
reaction to certain stimuli.
And secondly, people’s interpretations of the inkblots can be
catalogued into repetitious and collectively standardized themes, and people’s
sketches of trees, houses, and people, too, can be catalogued into repetitious
collectively standardized themes.
However, rather than deliver a lesson in projective tests and
the validity and reliability of such, this particular blog entry is really only
about the imagined projective test that I have thought about and now am writing
about in this COVID-19 time.
My proposed projective test, of course, has a snappy title: COIF,
COSTUME, AND CONVERSATION. I
mentioned this projective idea to a former student, Rebecca, who is now a researcher/writer for the Canadian Mental Health Association. She coined this test as “C3.” I am mentioning this because I think this is
a very clever nickname, a very snappy title.
COIF. COSTUME. CONVERSATION.
I shall offer annotated explanations for each, and in so doing project some of my preferred foibles in
relation to the C3:
COIF is short for “coiffure.” In any dictionary, be it the Cambridge or
Merriam-Webster, coiffure refers to
the style in which someone’s hair is cut and arranged. For commentary purposes, I shall employ Coif,
Costume, and Conversation, all as metaphors for a bigger interest. Coif,
Costume, and Conversation shall be a synecdoche of style and representation for
all I am about to explain. So Coif, for
the purposes of my test, shall represent all natural body parts, cap-a-pie, hair
to toe and all the body in-between.
Anyone having hair chooses certain methods to deal with
it. I know among balding men (lots of
male-patterned baldies out there), the trend is to razor it to the wood. Comb overs are bad --bald is beautiful. Eyebrows, too, can be trendy. Girls and guys line up at kiosks in malls to
get their eyebrows waxed and shaped. And
how about eyewear. From the horn-rimmed
black Clark Kent style (Superman’s secret identity), to the rainbow-covered lollipops, to the throw-away dailies
contacts, the consumer has an eyeful. Mustaches
and beards have been in demand for a few years now, and now during the
quarantine, those in hirsute seem even more prevalent. As for whether one’s body type is endomorph
(fat and round), ectomorph (skinny and skeletal), or mesomorph (muscular and
hard), is entirely up to the wearer.
One’s body is the only place where one has to live, whether or not it is
taken care of is entirely the prerogative of the one within the skin.
(I don’t have hippie long hair and I don’t have a punk
skinhead Mohawk. I don’t have a dad stache or a dad bod. I especially do not have the paunch, as what
any trained C3 administrator would quickly pick as my hidden emotional internal
conflict.)
COSTUME, for the purpose of my projective, will refer to all
the clothing wear and all the accoutrements thereof, that become apparent
during the administration of the C3.
Again I shall offer lines cap-a-pie.
Does the client wear a ball cap, which is very trendy
nowadays? Sport headwear is definitely
in. There are lots and lots of NFL caps
and, of course, a zillion New York Yankee MLB Caps.
Does the client sport a golf shirt and/or a hoody, both of
which trending at the top of the street fashion charts? Blue jeans are always in fashion. Whether they are bought at Mark’s or Walmart
for a hundred bucks, or ordered online for 300 bucks, one cannot go wrong
wearing blue jeans.
Does the client wear those long and pointy leather oxfords, or
cowboy boots, or hiking boots? Flip-flops and sandals, too, can be
important. When interpreting a
projective test, such keys to the sole are keys to the soul.
(I don’t tuck in my t-shirts ad I don’t wear my socks with my
sandals.)
For accoutrements, in my case there is oftentimes a guitar (pun
intended). Accoutrements could include
even one’s mode of transportation. Does
the client prefer a sporty car or a family van, an SUV or a half ton truck (all
of which are very popular)? Or perhaps
the client takes a taxi or jumps a bus or rides a bicycle or motorcycle.
(For the past fifteen years I’ve driven an Acura sport
utility vehicle. I am a hiker and so I
need to drive across rivers and deserts, through valleys and over mountains.)
CONVERSATION will refer to most any communications that are
regarded as interpersonal. Talking to oneself
does not count toward any interpretation of this particular projective test. Verbal communications range from phatic chat
to professional debate to recreational speak. Casual texting and sexting in
tones positive or negative, caustic or crude, do not matter and are not
included for the C3.
Debating among professionals in a board room differs much
from a group of guys gibing on a fishing trip.
Trash talking on the sports field differs much from the gossip of girls
on a night out. Jokes that reference
global economics differ much from jokes referencing body parts. Emails differ much from sexts. Though I mention such communications, none of
these examples are grist to be included/employed for interpretation of my C3
projective test.
(Though I always pay strict attention to anyone speaking, and
offer my two cents only when directly addressed, and behave the perfect soldier
… I attend only when such meetings are obligatory. And I hate race or racy off-colour jokes.)
And there you have it, the skinny of the C3. Observing and combining physical traits with
fashion traits and traits of confabulation offer anyone the gist of anyone
else. As I stated, this short essay was the skinny skinny of my idea for a new projective test. In a future essay I shall elaborate more on the C3, enhancing the Coif (more detail in observations), the Costume (more detail in the brands and designs), and the Conversation (more detail in the dialogues).
Rather than centred around inkblots or the pencil drawings
of trees, houses, or people, the-world-is-my-oyster, anything on the planet is
potential stimuli for my C3. From coffee
shop to clinic, the mise-en-scene, too, for my administering of my C3 is
unlimited.
Judging a client via coif, costume, and conversation, any
such C3 test represents only a snapshot to be interpreted by the
administrator. This particular moment of
testing is just that, just a particular moment.
It very well could be a circadian rhythm or a lifetime look but that’s
not the point. The results of any
testing of a psychological nature reveal only the candidate information that is
true only that brief time of testing.
The result is a snapshot, not a picture album, of someone’s life. Administering the C3 for real would involve a much needed inquisition, a gathering of professional (what is your occupation?), social (who do you hang with?), and recreation (what are your hobbies?) responses from the client.
Just keep in mind the administering of the C3 in ambuscade
fashion would most certainly be professionally unethical. And also keep in mind, as with any psychological
test, projective or other type of inventory …
‘tis the therapist, not the modality, the moves the music along.
‘tis the therapist, not the modality, the moves the music along.
Marching in my CHAUCERIAN PARADE this week are some of my latest stay-at-home portraits:
 |
| EINSTEIN ROCKS |
