The inverted psychology of a bare tree

« 6 miles +1mile + 20ft | The most real »

The inverted psychology of a bare tree

by lucreziaborgia ^Pro @ 2008-12-23 – 12:52:58

When I was a teenager, I was asked to take a personality test.

I was to draw a tree. So I did. It was a normal tree, with green branches and a brown trunk. Healthy enough, but plain.

Then I was asked to draw another tree. No explanation of why I should, or any clues, were given. So I drew another tree. It was similar to the first one, but had fruits and birds within its branches.

The test is about what part of us we show to the others (the first one), and what we are really like (the second one). Apparently, most people will draw a full tree, with either fruits or Christmas decoration on it. The second tree, however, will be bare, a winter sight of naked branches. The frame is there, without the extra baubles of our public persona.

I seem to be... the other way round.

Why? I have never known.
Options:
Tags:

15 Comments to The inverted psychology of a bare tree

Hide subcomments

- pompeycaulkhead
- 2008-12-23 @ 13:19:08
A more important question would be what the hell was going on with the personality of the muppet who designed the test?
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- whoknows
- 2008-12-23 @ 14:09:46
I echo pompeycaulkhead. Psychology like that is a big unproven thing. 'House of cards' by Robyn M Dawes is a good book on that very subject. I've not heard of this test before, but it sounds similar to the House/Tree/Person test, which can be used by psychologists. This is, by the admnission of its creators, subjective in interpretation and administration. Not exactly scientific then.....

I'd love to see the research that says most people draw a bare second tree.
- - lucreziaborgia ^Pro
  - 2008-12-23 @ 15:44:51
  It could well mean, though, that I look normal from the outside, and am as mad as a box of Xmas decorations inside... It does make sense. xLux
  - - whoknows
    - 2008-12-23 @ 17:57:02
    I would have interpreted it as you drawing a 'normal' tree first off, and then when asked to draw another one, you assumed the first one wasn't 'good enough', and so 'tried harder' for the second tree. That's what I would have done. And that's the trouble with these sorts of tests - the 'interpretation' says as much about the test setter as the test sitter.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- Bushka ^Pro
- Bushka
- 2008-12-23 @ 16:30:12
Mmmmmm!!! I shall reserve comment on the 'comments' thus far. From our earlier repartee, it seems I am right in how I see you. The sequence of your drawing the tree is much more revealing than a simplistic /inside-out/; there is much more to you than meets the eye -- for the perceptive a positive challenge to engage you!
- - lucreziaborgia ^Pro
  - 2008-12-23 @ 17:59:46
  Ah. An amateur psychologist. Join the queue, my sweet. My husband has already decreed I suffer from hystrionic-paranoid disorder. I am looking forward to your view on that one. xLux
  - - Bushka ^Pro
    - Bushka
    - 2008-12-23 @ 19:29:06
    Another monicker to add to my person; if every perceptive, thoughtful and sensitive human being is dubbed an amateur this, that or the other.....I expect many of us, if not all of us, will end up as an amateur something; or am I being facetious? Actually, I have some..(quite a bit)...knowledge of 'depth psychology', the kind of which does not readily resort to labling any of the flaws in the human condition. I look forward to the queue of comments that follow your comment! Wonder what this may say of, the comment or the commentator..
    - - lucreziaborgia ^Pro
      - 2008-12-23 @ 20:48:57
      Nah, too late my friend. I blogged about my Estranged Husband's labelling weeks ago. I suspect most bloggers will probably agree, but they had the good sense and amazing kindness of spirit to cheer me up and reassure me that I am just mad, not hystrionically so... xLux
      - Bushka ^Pro
        
        Bushka
        
        2008-12-23 @ 21:29:57
        
        Cheers! Read this with my response, elsewhere!!!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- blacksheep63 ^Pro
- 2008-12-23 @ 16:44:46
i'm so glad no one analysed my teenage scribblings.. i'd have been locked away!
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- rithompson
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/rithompson/
- 2008-12-23 @ 18:02:59
Presumably they think that you are a mere mortal, whereas they are psychology gods so you don't need to worry about the fine details of your mind!
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Foxwriter
- 2008-12-23 @ 19:25:17
I can only offer my usual comment here.

Psychology is not a 'real' science.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- QueeneMab
- 2008-12-23 @ 21:01:41
Just proves what a load of time wasting old bunkum psychology is I am afraid.

X
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- pompeycaulkhead
- 2008-12-23 @ 21:23:51
QueeneMab you may be right but if we didn't have psychology and the shit for brains who practice it we would have one less thing in the world to laugh at and wouldn't that make our rock a slightly duller place?
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- featherintheair
- 2008-12-24 @ 17:58:48
that is why you are so unique in my eyes...
- Reply to comment
- Permalink