In this essay we suggest that interpretations of a simple figure might be useful to probe the minds of astronomers, much as some psychologists use Rorschach’s famous ink blots. The Rorschach test (ref 1) “has been employed to detect underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly.”
Figure 1: (top) A pair of colored rectangles; (bottom) a Rorschach Ink Blot (ref 1)
Objectively examining the two colored rectangles in Figure 1, a person might get the impression by their equal widths and nearly equal heights that they might be an imperfect mirror reflection across the center line, like an ink blot formed by folding a piece of paper. Except one is blue and the other red, and the blue rectangle is a few percent taller than the red one. Both 2-D rectangles are considerably taller than they are wide, and there are a few horizontal grey tick marks spaced vertically at regular intervals. That’s about all one can say about such a simple figure, objectively. Now comes the fun part…
To administer a Rorschach test to an astronomer, show them the rectangles, not the ink blot. Wait for their interpretation. After a while, to aid the process, explain that the heights are proportional to the success rates of hundreds of proposals subjected to peer review by panels composed of scores of males and females. Then listen. They may project assumptions upon the figure, which is common for astronomers or any humans, or they may ask for more explanation. You could add that the proposals were separated into those led by a male (blue) or those led by a female (red). You could incrementally add that the proposals are for observing with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope. Again, listen to them project their assumptions, biases, (mis)understandings, lived experiences, or hearsay and rumors upon the figure. Remember, the point is not to understand the ink blots but to use them to probe the mind of the person interpreting them. To encourage interpretation, you might ask or comment, “Why do you think that is?” and “How would that work?” and “Tell me more…” and “How does that make you feel?”
After listening for a while, show them Figure 2, a time series of pairs of rectangles, labeled by year at the top, and with the latest few pairs separated with green background that corresponds to the use of dual-anonymous peer review, DAPR (refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). That means the reviewers didn’t know the names (or genders) of the proposers and vice versa. Again, listen and perhaps ask some of the open-ended questions listed above.
What interpretations does the astronomer express?
Figure 2. Pairs of vertical bars (ref 3). DAPR began in 2018 (green shaded region). In a typical year, more than a hundred astronomers review approximately a thousand proposals in order to allocate about 2000 hours of time on the Hubble Space Telescope.
References
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review
Watkins, L. 2022, https://hst-docs.stsci.edu/hsp/files/86574194/124420126/1/1653512035049/C30+DAPR+Virtual.pdf
Reid, N. 2014, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/678964
Strolger, L. & Natarajan, P. 2019, https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.3.20190301a/full/
P.R.M. thanks Dorian Abbot, Luana Majora, and Marisol Quintanilla for reviewing a draft of this essay prior to publication.
What is the point supposed to be? This elliptical language about "feelings" is just weird.
I think the point is to get people to the correct conclusion of the data despite bias