I have mixed feelings about what you're saying and about the article. On the one hand, I completely empathize with what you're saying--it's mystifying to me wh

I have mixed feelings about what you're saying and about the article. On the one hand, I completely empathize with what you're saying--it's mystifying to me when I see practices continue when there's so much empirical data about them to suggest they shouldn't be used. In the US less-well validated procedures are on the wane, but they still appear in use from time to time. On the other hand, although I agree Lilienfeld's paper is excellent, buried in it is the complicated truth that some projective tests do demonstrate evidence of validity. There's also the tricky issue that a test is not just a stimulus set, but a procedure, and even certain ways of the Rorschach have proven useful empirically. But all these things have been forgotten or ridiculed because of the current anti-projective zeitgeist. That is, certain projectives, used in a certain way, are invalid, and it happens those have been the most popular, but if you take another hard look at the data, it's not true of projective tests in general. The article provides a nice overview of the Rorschach, but the end is puzzling to me. The MMPI is one of the best-validated behavioral measures in history, and the examples are so misleading that I wonder about the author and Annie Paul's motives. An item such as ‘My mother is (or was) a good woman’ isn't interpreted in isolation, and even if it was interpreted in such a way, it has predictive value in the same way as your social media history that so many services are starting to scrape for prediction also. It's an interesting article that ends on a note of incompetent ignorance.