Rorschach ink blots are used to identify and understand the personality of a person. In essence, the test is simple enough: you have an ink blot, that forms a pattern of some kind, and you see what you want to see. The theory is that what you want to see says a lot about who you are.
(Note: This is, of course, over-simplified. There’s actually a lot more to it, and there is a specific set of blots that is used. Apparently, I’m hoping that a little knowledge is *not* a dangerous thing 
)
It makes sense, I suppose. Your sub-conscious perceives the pattern and your brain processes it in a particular way; in a way that is familiar to how you think, and in doing so, reveal how you work, without really intending to. There’s a logical simplicity to it that appeals to me.
The thing is, with these tests, it’s not so much what exactly you say, so much as what you’re implying. That implication is inevitably judged by the tester -and therein lies the rub. The subjectivity of it gives rise to a lot of controversy about how effective the tests are.
Everything is subjective; there is no such thing as an “objective opinion”.
…
Growing older causes so many issues.
It used to be so nice to be young – one could carry a nice, happy, reckless, devil-may-care attitude and get away with it. Your confidence was nigh unshakeable. There was no question of falling and hurting yourself; you were infallible (the pun was completely incidental, I swear.). Suddenly, you grow up, and, just as suddenly, you start worrying about consequences, and what-ifs.
It’s not a nice feeling.
But the worst is, you realise that who you are, the individuality of “you”, is not very important anymore. There aren’t really any “special” people. We’re all similar, and our differences are rarely appreciated. Suddenly, it matters to fit into a pattern, to “fit in”. The recklessness of youth may be fodder for many a conversation over coffee, but it doesn’t work like it used to. It’s frowned upon, along with everything else you used to do without thinking. You need to be one of ‘them’ to get along; you need to be one of ‘them’ to be liked; you need to be one of ‘them’ to be loved.
…
Have you ever noticed how much harder it gets to meet new people you get along with, after a certain age?
I wouldn’t say it’s hard to meet people, especially now, with the internet bringing everybody closer together, whether they like it or not. It’s just harder to find that crowd, that group, that person, even, who you can just hang out with, and connect with. Why is that? Especially considering the fact that those people do exist, and you’ve probably met them already, and some of them are also your best friends. Why is it so hard to find others like that? In fact, I think it’s harder to find close friends than to find lovers; at least when you’re looking for a partner, you’re willing to invest so much more time and effort. When you’re just looking for a friendly face, and someone to hang out with, the will to invest much time is just *that* much weaker.
…
I recently had a discussion with my mother about graphic novels. She felt I made too much hype about novels with “questionable content”. Eh? Beg your pardon? What “questionable content”? Apparently, my mother felt that “graphic novels” referred to novels of, um, a “graphic nature”.
(That is, heavy on the sex and violence.)
(No, she doesn’t really have the highest opinion of me.)
(No, that was not what I “really meant”.)
See, that’s what I like about semantics – there’s *always* a good laugh in there, if you’re patient enough.
