| ...now you know how patients were selected
for ECT and psychosurgery.
If you could see the suggested content in the three picture Zulliger ink-blot test and knew about Lady Godiva and Napalm you mirror the replies given by one fit person who had no previous history of mental illness and was, just on the basis of these Zulliger pictures and a full Motivational Analysis Test question set (the psychologist claiming later that , a personal history was not relevant as the tests alone are sufficient to arrive at a diagnosis) interpreted by a psychologist and psychiatrist, classified as a borderline schizophrenic with disturbed perception and a paranoid personality disorder. This patient was soon tricked into attending Chelmsford and there marched off for narcosis and electric shock treatment. Which in this case turned a fit person into an unemployable disabled wreck.
Psychological testing is an even bigger industry in Australia today than back in the 1970s. In the downsizing 90s it is used more than ever and some psychologists make a living out of testing job applicants for suitability, and on existing employees when organisations are downsizing. For example some NSW teachers have been forced to have a personality evaluation if they wish to be considered for continued employment in their re-structured positions. Then on the basis of being tested, using such tests late one afternoon at what used to be the government's medical examination centre, they find they are retrenched on medical grounds, because the testing has 'revealed' that they have serious mental problems. This totally destroys them leaving them unemployable with no path to any legal redress for they cannot question 'medical opinion'. All very convenient for senior executives who have to find ways of cutting staff numbers without running into problems with anti-discrimination laws, if they wish to keep their own job !
These tests were referred to by Stephen Rice in his 1988 book"Some Doctors Make You Sick: The scandal of medical incompetence, and who commented:
These tests purport to measure the nonintellectual aspects of behaviour. They go by authoritative titles like "personality measurement" and "psychometric testing". But in reality they have proved to be unreliable, misleading and sometimes fraudulent.
In the United States, following Congressional hearings in 1965, "personality" tests have been banned in selecting applicants for federal employment-because it was shown that the tests were not able to predict any human behaviour that was relevant to the jobs.
But in Australia such tests continue to do incalculable damage to careers and job prospects, and also these same tests were used diagnose mental illness-and to determine whether patients should undergo electric shock treatment, for deep-sleep (narcosis) treatment, and psychosurgery.
Ink-blot tests are, in psychological terms, Projective tests; that is, the patient is supposed to project his or her personality onto an "unstructured stimulus", such as an ink-blot pattern. The most famous ink-blot test, the Rorschach technique, was invented in 1921. By 1965, the test was being administered to a million people every year in the United States, despite the growing bank of evidence against it. The experts were questioning whether it had any value at all-apart from the $25 million a year it was putting into clinical psychologists' pockets. In the same year, 1965, a leading authority, Professor Arthur Jensen, wrote in the normally conservative Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook that the Rorschach test "has too inadequate reliability and too meagre validity, even in the hands of the most expert, to justify any claims for its practical usefulness".
The Rorschach test involved 10 cards; a shortened version using only 3 cards was later devised by Hans Zulliger, a Swiss psychologist. The Zulliger test was even more comprehensively debunked than the Rorschach. But it has been used extensively in Australia.
Almost uniformly, the experts regard the MAT, devised by Raymond Cattell, as a research instrument only often unreliable, and certainly not a test that should be used to diagnose mental illness. But in Australia, that is exactly what it has been used for.
The psychologist referred to above even made up his own categories for the MAT tests and gave them new meanings. Many of the tests he used were not "normed"-that is, tested against the general population-yet he made comparisons as though they were.
All these tests are prone to interpreter-bias, particularly if the interpreter has been briefed by a psychiatrist to "look" for certain things. This psychologist had a close professional and personal relationship with the two psychiatrists involved. They shared consulting rooms; they cross-referred hundreds of patients; and they co-authored research papers on the "success" of their methods-a success demonstrated by "before" and "after" psychological profiles, courtesy of Messrs Zulliger and Cattell.
And ten years later ? ... such testing still goes on here at an increased rate.
Are Australians some of the most gullible people on earth , or just very badly served by their many parliaments and host of MPs, who fail to provide them with meaningful consumer protection, consitutional rights, or actual access to the common law so as to allow for enforcement of some basic human and civil rights ?