LOLOriginally posted by Sailor Saturn
Hmm...that's actually pretty accurate, except for part of their definition of Antisocial(unless you include the online RPGs I participate in). As for Narcissistic, what do you expect when I've taken a test that told me I'm Legolas.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Seriously though, it's a bit contradictory to be high on both Schizotypal and Histrionic, as you were. Schizotypal personality traits are characterised by withdrawal, introversion and not caring or not liking to have relations with other people, whereas histrionic personality traits include being highly extrovert, overly social, flirtatious and focusing a lot on what other people think of you.
I haven't seen the MMPI, I have consciously avioded it because I plan to take it (for fun of course, one of my friends is using it clinically so she has promised to give it to me).posted by VoodooD
I took the test. Seems to be a bad version of the MMPI (which I did take years ago for fun). On the MMPI I scored high on the unconventional/anti-authority scale and was otherwise normal.
The test Dottie linked to also resembles a very short and bad version of the SCID II-screening self-report questionnare. Have you used SCID? It's the diagnostic tool connected to the DSM-IV, it consists of the questionnare that is constructed to be overinclusive (as to be sure not to miss anything) and the long, structured interview which helps the clinician to investigate whether a person fulfills a certain critera or not. SCID I is for axis one, SCID II for axis II, ie the personality disorders.
No, I haven't taken the Rorschach test, but I think it's a good idea with this new computerised version. In the bad old days, the Rorschach test was far too subjective, now it actually says something although the validity of the test is of course still discussed. A friend of mine took the test when we were students, but he thought the result didn't match him at all.
CE--have you ever taken the newer version of the Rorschach? It was the most revealing test I ever took. One of the psychology PhD candidates administered it to me for practice. It was given in the usual way, I had to look at the blots and then he wrote down everything I said. But now there is a computerized part of it that he filled out that compares your answers to thousands of other people's answers. I was found in that one to have something in common with schizophrenics in my thinking--since I'm known to have a lot of loose associations when just rambling on--I'm just a very lateral thinker. That psychologist was really helpful to me--he taught me to explain to people how I got to the subject I was on so they wouldn't be going "Huh?" when I talked to them. Perhaps that explains why I was a good therapist with schizophrenics--I had no trouble following their train of thought. At the time, I was publishing a good bit of poetry, and I think that poets have a lot in common with the thought-disordered people.
It is interesting that your thinking share some properties of the fragmented thinking and speaking typical in schizophrenic patients. I'm sure this helps you to understand the way many of those patients communicate. I often found it difficult and exhausting to communicate with my patients, obviously I wasn't bad at it since they seemed to like me and trust me a lot, but it made me very, very tired. That's why I abandoned my clinical career (for now, at least), I found it impossible to combine my research with seeing patients.
I actually think artists in general can benefit from tendecies towards unusal experiences and thinking, although very severe versions of this thinking may be pathological conditions. One such example is synesthesia, in severe forms it usually includes a lot of suffering from the patient, whereas studies show that milder forms are much more frequent among artists than in the normal population.