It seemed like a fun game to me
I think it was to test creativity maybe? Imagination?
Either way the Doctor certainly knew his stuff, and I certainly defer to his judgement in doing the test or not.
By the way the Doctor utterly repudiated the notion of subjecting prospective Seminarians to lie detector tests. He said that would be treating them as criminals, and I must agree. Nothing would put me on edge more than a lie detector test. Even though I wouldn’t (and didn’t) lie, I would be nervous about putting my entire ecclesiastical vocation on the line with the gears and bolts of a lie detector test.
hey don’t get me wrong I think doctors do their best and do concede that they know what they are doing , until the prove me personally wrong, an I direct my comments thus to me alone or at least I should have if I did not.
though if such an odd test is going to be used I do not see how a lie detector test would be any worse, I can understand the pressure from being hooked up to a machine and wondering if I am being treated like a criminal, an surly for one like myself who deals with anxiety I have no doubt the machine would freak me out an I would probably register some false negatives.
I think psychological testing works really well for those with true mental issues, who want honest answers, or may be on trial do not know they have problems an the courts can use that information to better understand the one being prosecuted or defende… but for those who are not prepared to take one and may not realize they are dealing with problems it could come as a shock when the results come back, if they are allowed to know their results.
an I would finish with saying psychologists an psychiatrists can be really beneficial if one is willing to talk to one, an be open for help, an that like anything a person has to find the right one that they feel comfortable talking too.
so having to go into a psyc exam an talk to a psychologist whom one has never met before, and did not seek to talk to , to begin with, can be very a daunting task to a person, not everyone though, some people could be very comfortable… my worthless two cents is the psychological exam should be a slower and longer process probably started earlier in the discernment process when one is in communication with a vocations director, a preliminary psyc exam, that with permission of the applicant can be reviewed and discussed with the vocations director and in turn the vocations director could have a better understanding of the person he is talking to and how to advise the person on his journey.
instead of just basically tossing an applicant into a very long psyc exam and given a quick response to multiple things some which the applicant might just find to be a shock.
And then more over I wonder what would happen in terms of offering a candidate more psychological help if the psych exam determined the person is dealing with a lot of problems on various levels or would the board and bishop just tell the candidate thank you for applying but not right now an you may want to find help on your own.
Things that could or maybe even should be discussed at some level with a vocations director, bishop, board, and applicant, but alas there is no time for such things and everyone is granted doing the best they can with what they have, it is understandable.
