Professional Tarot Certification?

gregory

ribbitcat said:
I may be a mere member here LOL and am also a mere member there too - now ;-) but I did used to be rather a bigwig before I dealt with my control issues so sucessfully LOL ....let's say, I'm semi-retired with the relevant contacts and permissions ....
No-one is a MERE member :). But I think any such requests should come directly from tabi, if you see what I mean (and I know you did post the email address but it is against the rules !) I could swear blind I was an official there, and someone might believe me.... You would know I wasn't - but by then the damage might have been done ! (Look at all the identify theft going on these days - someone in London recently had his HOUSE taken by identity theft; luckily his bank was able to get it back but whoever sold it on, still has the money from the sale.... and the "new owners" are a bit hacked off, to put it mildly, to find that they paid a deposit whcih they won't get back - I hate to think what happens to their mortgage. Official channels are there for a reason !)

True. However, you must not be surprised that TABI members would want more details of such a complaint.
Aaah, in the business world, the true purpose behind a disciplinary procedure is to establish the gap between standards and performance and then to take action to remove the gap. And this was my intent when I asked Netzach privately for details - this reader may need coaching, help with English especially if it's not their first language, and the mentor may require assistance also .....
I agree - see above though. The trouble with the net in particular is that people can say they are all manner of things, and lie.

And incidentally, Moongold, counsellor registration is not entirely reliable. There are so many people who manage to register and be useless - a newspaper sting here a couple of years ago managed to register a dog and the most racist and offensive comedian we have here; they went throught just like that, and were both approved by the BCA (who I hope have since deregistered them....) You would have thought the comedian's name would have alerted them, but apparently not. Scary !
 

jmd

Ribbitcat earlier asked for some feedback regarding the post included on behalf of someone else (who therefore presumable does not post hereon).

So let me address a few issues raised.

Firstly, regarding:
"I am surprised and more than a little concerned by your experience of our [ie, TABI's] Free Reading service. Grammar and spelling is something we take very seriously and devote as much attention to this as to the content of the reading.​
From this, one can take it that the endorsement supposedly says two thing about the endorsee.

On the one hand, that their literacy is such that they are able to communicate in the written form. Of course, ideally all adults would have this, but personally do not see why this need form a basis for a person offering, for example, live readings from a shop front, or by audio-recording (as long as they do not have accents very difficult to understand for us foreigners to certain regions of the UK). This aspect of 'endorsement' has nothing to do with tarot reading per se.

The other aspect, about the so-called 'content of the reading', is explained in the ensuing part:
Our (ie, TABI's) aim in mentoring readers in the Endorsement scheme is to help them to develop a professional standard of reading, in terms of interpretation, ethics and presentation.​
Unless this so-called 'professional standard' of 'interpretation' has altered from a previous discussion in the thread I linked to earlier, it excludes more insightful off-the-cuff interpretations, and requires a particular manner of viewing the cards - fine for some individuals if they want, but this gives an false view as to Tarot interpretation. Far broader interpretations than the (also wonderful and possible, but not only nor necessary) interpretations suggested by Joan Bunnings are not only possible, but likely. The reader need not also be able to necessarily do a 'meta-reading' - in other words, s/he may be a great reader without being able to explain why they see things in a particular manner in a particular reading-at-hand.

Regarding the so-called 'ethics', this is, from earlier looking at the site, no more than a codification of certain directives, rather than entering ethical considerations into the situation at hand.

I would also suggest that a 'ongoing peer quality check' means nothing more than a way in which only certain types of readings are deemed legitimate. Fortunately for the world of tarot, no such things have either existed in the past in a broader manner, nor were the public duped into thinking that such 'peer quality check' showed what those terms would be assumed to imply. In this case, 'peer quality check' does not check the accuracy nor quality of any reading-at-hand.

I would suggest that those of us not involved in any form of 'certification' nor formal 'endorsement' process (other than personal recommendation, as we would anyone we knew and wanted to recommend) be vigilant in preventing a slow creeping invasion of any kind of formalisation of readers or reading processses.

The wide diversity of books currently on the market hopefully shows that each decade opens yet new aspects to manners in which Tarot is used and viewed, and an argument for 'certification' or 'endorsement' by an organisation on grounds of presumption of public protection from the evil clutches of con-artists does not hold. Rather, it would only give a credence of legitimacy to con-artists who would flutter to gain such.

This is not a criticism of the other aspects of TABI, by the way. Neither would a criticism of the other UK-based body that provides so-called accreditation or certification for Tarot Readers be a criticism of its other aspects.

It does put into question, however, whether by joining TABI the applicant is giving implicit support to such farce... I will welcome the day when TABI (and a few other Tarot organisations who still include such as part of their membership) formerly declare that certification and endorsement does not in any manner suggest that those readers are any better than readers without such.

And will rejoice when a decision is also made by those same organisations to abandon claims to either certification or endorsement!
 

ribbitcat

for JMD from Ania

Many apologies, have been offline for a few days ...am posting this for Ania, explanation below ....

jmd said:
Ribbitcat earlier asked for some feedback regarding the post included on behalf of someone else (who therefore presumable does not post hereon).

***I do not post here because every time I try to sign up, it craps out
and I'm gettting fed up of typing in my numerous decks etc to no avail.
I have tried about 5 times to join the group and it fails every time

So let me address a few issues raised.

Firstly, regarding:
"I am surprised and more than a little concerned by your experience of our [ie, TABI's] Free Reading service. Grammar and spelling is something we take very seriously and devote as much attention to this as to the content of the reading.​
From this, one can take it that the endorsement supposedly says two thing about the endorsee.

On the one hand, that their literacy is such that they are able to communicate in the written form. Of course, ideally all adults would have this, but personally do not see why this need form a basis for a person offering, for example, live readings from a shop front, or by audio-recording (as long as they do not have accents very difficult to understand for us foreigners to certain regions of the UK). This aspect of 'endorsement' has nothing to do with tarot reading per se.

***Professionalism includes the ability to communicate effectively and
coherently. In the form of email, grammar and spelling are just as
important as content, in face to face the spelling is unimportant but
the ability to construct a coherent sentence is. Let's face it, when you
get an email that looks as if it was typed by a roomful of monkeys or is
"wrtn n txtspk" bacause the writer just can't be bothered to type the
whole word, are you going to be impressed by the content? I wouldn’t be!
Would you be impressed by someone who punctuates every sentence with
"er", "yeah" and "ummm"? In written readings it’s the same thing - why
shouldn’t grammar and spelling be important.


The other aspect, about the so-called 'content of the reading', is explained in the ensuing part:
Our (ie, TABI's) aim in mentoring readers in the Endorsement scheme is to help them to develop a professional standard of reading, in terms of interpretation, ethics and presentation.​
Unless this so-called 'professional standard' of 'interpretation' has altered from a previous discussion in the thread I linked to earlier, it excludes more insightful off-the-cuff interpretations, and requires a particular manner of viewing the cards - fine for some individuals if they want, but this gives an false view as to Tarot interpretation. Far broader interpretations than the (also wonderful and possible, but not only nor necessary) interpretations suggested by Joan Bunnings are not only possible, but likely. The reader need not also be able to necessarily do a 'meta-reading' - in other words, s/he may be a great reader without being able to explain why they see things in a particular manner in a particular reading-at-hand.

***You must recognise the intent in a particular card. Even if you
choose to design your own deck and assign whatever meanings you choose
to the cards, you must then stick to a reasonable approcimation of these
meanings. A card that has negative undertones can not suddenly become a
"happy ever after" - surely you appreciate this?


Regarding the so-called 'ethics', this is, from earlier looking at the site, no more than a codification of certain directives, rather than entering ethical considerations into the situation at hand.

***Do you not appreciate that as tarot readers we must have certain
basic ethics? Do you feel that it is acceptable to give people false
hope? To spy on others on their behalf? To predict a future theat they
believe they have no power over or ability to change? Is this acceptable
to you? Joan Bunning is not the be all and end all, but she has a good
beginners course, which we teach to beginners. It is not linked to the
Endorsement scheme. If our readers have leaned through our course, then
yes, they will have interpretations based on these meanings, but this
does not limit their own insight and learning from other sources. We try
to accommodate all kinds of readers from a variety of backgrounds, but
we deal in tarot and have limited facility to mentor people who hear
"voices". As a tarot reader yourself, if you received a reading that was
totally off the wall and the interpretations bore no relevance to the
traditional meanings of the cards, what would you think?


I would also suggest that a 'ongoing peer quality check' means nothing more than a way in which only certain types of readings are deemed legitimate. Fortunately for the world of tarot, no such things have either existed in the past in a broader manner, nor were the public duped into thinking that such 'peer quality check' showed what those terms would be assumed to imply. In this case, 'peer quality check' does not check the accuracy nor quality of any reading-at-hand.

***Not at all. The posting of anonomised readings allows readers to
discuss readings and feedback with their peers as part of a learning
process. Often we get no feedback whatsoever from the querent. This can
be very demoralising for a new reader and the readers list can give them
the opportunity to get (what is known in the business world as) a 360
degree feedaback. The difference between this and a list like this is
the shared experience of the Free Reading service.



I would suggest that those of us not involved in any form of 'certification' nor formal 'endorsement' process (other than personal recommendation, as we would anyone we knew and wanted to recommend) be vigilant in preventing a slow creeping invasion of any kind of formalisation of readers or reading processses.

***Once again I see this forum rubbishing what they know nothing about.
If you do not wish to be endorsed by your peers, then that is your
perogative. We advocate endorsement for those who wish it as a way to
have their talents and knowledge acknowledged by their peers. If you
care nothing for this, then fine, but don't imply that it is a worthless
process - it isn't for a great many readers, many of whom get confidence
from knowing that they have the recognition of their peers.

The wide diversity of books currently on the market hopefully shows that each decade opens yet new aspects to manners in which Tarot is used and viewed, and an argument for 'certification' or 'endorsement' by an organisation on grounds of presumption of public protection from the evil clutches of con-artists does not hold. Rather, it would only give a credence of legitimacy to con-artists who would flutter to gain such.

***Are you suggesting that TABI are con artists? I rather think that our
300+ members would disagree with you.


This is not a criticism of the other aspects of TABI, by the way. Neither would a criticism of the other UK-based body that provides so-called accreditation or certification for Tarot Readers be a criticism of its other aspects.

It does put into question, however, whether by joining TABI the applicant is giving implicit support to such farce... I will welcome the day when TABI (and a few other Tarot organisations who still include such as part of their membership) formerly declare that certification and endorsement does not in any manner suggest that those readers are any better than readers without such.

***I am really offended that you refer to what we do as a farce. We do
not and never have claimed that our readers are necessarily better that
any others. What do we attest to is that they have a basic knowledge of
the cards (i.e., they are not just making it up on the fly), that they
do have a basic code of ethics (see our website for details) and can
present a reading in a coherent fashion. WHAT IS YPOUR PROBLEM WITH
THAT?! You can probably tell that I am really getting quite annoyed now!
If I could sign up to this bloomin' group then I would post this myself,
but since I can’t, I can only offer that Ribbit passes on my details via
PM if you wish to take this up with me personally. Incidentally, you can
find my details on TABI's contact pages - my name is Ania, I am the
current Treasurer and thus a member of the panel, as well as an Endorsed
reader and Mentor.


And will rejoice when a decision is also made by those same organisations to abandon claims to either certification or endorsement!

***Why should we abandon what our members want just bcause you, in your
infinite wisdomn, don't approve? What is it you fear? That perhaps your
peers would not agree with your own opinion of your readings? Perhaps
it's easier to bask in the approval of less knowledgable clients, that
be open before your peers.

Ania.
 

jmd

A brief reply to the points raised above:

a) grammar and speliing are important, but does not in any manner indicate a good reader;

b) a card in the context of a particular reading may indeed take on opposite meanings or meanings that may not have previously been considered - am I to read that TABI 'endorsed' readers are not to allow for this?

c) I have personally long argued and mentioned that ethical considerations are very important, but this is a different matter to a codification practice that seeks to have the 'rule' applied, rather than the reader enter into the ethical dimensions of the situation-at-hand;

d) there are numerous wonderful aspects to discussing a specific reading and possible interpretation of displayed cards, as there is in providing feedback to each other and the reader. From this, we all learn, but this does not in any manner suggest that the reading is either more nor less accurate - so is not a 'quality check' in the reading as reading;

e) I did not comment on the 'process' - the 'process' seems to have all the wonderful qualities that any learning environment or course would offer, this does not in any manner indicate that formal 'certification' or 'endorsement' is legitimate;

f) regarding the comment about con-artists, I suggest a re-reading of my earlier entry. I did not suggest (nor do I believe) that TABI are con-artists, but rather, in my personal view, there is what seems a logical gap between the beneficial offerings of support, mutual feedback and courses, and the false impression that someone 'endorsed' somehow is either better than someone who isn't. Also, the point about 'con-artists' was in reference to the argument at times presented by those who argue for certification that this somehow provides a safety against them - it does not;

g - i) the 'farce' is in presenting 'endorsement' as somehow legitimate, and, as you may find my comment about this offensive, I'll be very clear and also state unequivocally that the presumption of 'endorsement' or 'certification' as somehow guaranteeing a superior reading is in itself offensive to at least myself, even if no-one else;

g - ii) the other part that is highly offensive, at least to myself, is the presumption of ethical codification, a practise that is increasingly gaining grounds in a number of professions in this ever-more regulatised world;

h) your members may indeed want some kind of ethical codification, or endorsement or certification programme. A number of people wanting something does not make it right, especially when this is not only presented as in-house, but also advertised to the broader public. In such a case, it gives the impression that TABI's endorsement somehow guarantees better readings than from non-endorsed readers - and surely one does not need even my minimal 'wisdom' to see that this is simply not the case.
 

Netzach

I always thought that TABI was a serious and intelligent organisation - which is why I was so disappointed by the reading I had from one of its members. However, from what ribbitcat has told me, it seems that this is NOT the general standard of readings and I have been greatly reassured by what I have read in Ania/ribbitcat's post that TABI is aiming for high quality readings.

However, I have to disagree with jmd regarding the implication that endorsed readers are better than others. I belong to an organisation called the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association. In order to join, you have to demonstrate to the committee that you have a wide knowledge of bookselling and antiquarian books, that you know how to catalogue books fully (much more difficult than it sounds), that you are efficient and honest and ethical. However, these criteria do not imply that all the many booksellers who are not members are somehow less knowledgeable, less able, less ethical. Joining is a personal choice. Some people choose not to join simply because they are not "joiners". Some don't feel that they would get enough benefit out of it to warrant the annual subscription. There are all sorts of reasons why people don't join - and there is no pressure on them to join. So why should an organisation like TABI be any different? I see no pressure being exerted on people to join nor, looking at TABI's website, any pressure on its own members to become endorsed readers. And I see no evidence of TABI saying "these readers are better than any others". All that is being said, in the same way that the ABA says something about its members, is that if you get a reading from a TABI reader, you can be sure that they know something about tarot, will not scare you silly by making alarmist predictions, and are bound by a basic code of ethics. Incidentally I am told by ribbitcat that the reading I received was by someone in training and not by an endorsed reader.
 

ribbitcat

Netzach's TABI reading

Hiya :)

The reader's mentor is very apologetic that this reading somehow went under her radar; for other reasons, the reader now has a different mentor who says that the readings have improved, both in quality and presentation/grammar etc. The reader was inexperienced as regards written readings. Of course, we all have to start somewhere, and one of the main objectives of the TABI free reading service is to provide an arena/practice for those who wish to gain experience ...and as Netzach has acknowledged privately, the reading was not actually as bad as she remembered it.

Kind of allied topic-wise but off a bit....I (and TABI) have addressed Netzach's complaint, which was taken as constructive criticism, because we found out about it here, on a public forum. I wish that people would not wait to air it in such a way, but would feedback fully to either the reader or to the relevant TABI person (all of whom are listed in the "Contact Us" section of the TABI website) so that any concerns can be addressed. For instance, how could this reader be expected to improve if they don't know that their readings are lacking ?(mentor aside)

It reminds me of asking someone if their meal was OK as the empty plate is cleared, and then hear a litany of what was wrong - when there is no longer an opportunity to fix the problem .....

ribbitcat.
 

Netzach

ribbitcat said:
I wish that people would not wait to air it in such a way, but would feedback fully to either the reader or to the relevant TABI person (all of whom are listed in the "Contact Us" section of the TABI website) so that any concerns can be addressed. For instance, how could this reader be expected to improve if they don't know that their readings are lacking ?(mentor aside)

Yes, I understand this. However, when I received the reading, I had no way of knowing whether the reader was learning or was endorsed. It was my first experience of a TABI reading and I had nothing (other than high standard AT readings) to compare it with. I didn't feel it was my place to comment on the typos or the grammar, nor on the quality of the reading - particularly if this turned out to be an endorsed reader.

May I suggest that, if the reader is not yet endorsed, the request for feedback says something along the lines of "please send any feedback to me or my mentor" and give the mentor's email address as well. If I had been presented with that option I would, I think, have contacted the mentor to make my feelings known.
 

gregory

Netzach said:
Yes, I understand this. However, when I received the reading, I had no way of knowing whether the reader was learning or was endorsed. It was my first experience of a TABI reading and I had nothing (other than high standard AT readings) to compare it with. I didn't feel it was my place to comment on the typos or the grammar, nor on the quality of the reading - particularly if this turned out to be an endorsed reader.

May I suggest that, if the reader is not yet endorsed, the request for feedback says something along the lines of "please send any feedback to me or my mentor" and give the mentor's email address as well. If I had been presented with that option I would, I think, have contacted the mentor to make my feelings known.
That is a suggestion which would seem to me to be common sense. Even places like e-bay ask for feedback; it is one very good way of deciding who to buy from; if tabi readers automatically asked for feedback (which woould not need to be made public) it would give them pointers on where to improve in ways which a mentor might not spot.

I am reminded of something that happened at work recently, where we missed telling someone something because we all knew it, and assumed everyone in the world did (as you do in your own area of expertise.....we're all human) - but someone not working in this area didn't, and was totally baffled by what we had said, as she couldn't put it in context and it appeared to make no sense. Sometimes we need feedback from rank amateurs almost more than from mentors and teachers..... We need to know what the uninitiated see in what we do, and how they understand what we say (if they do understand it. If not - we need to know that too !)
 

ribbitcat

Netzach said:
Yes, I understand this. However, when I received the reading, I had no way of knowing whether the reader was learning or was endorsed. It was my first experience of a TABI reading and I had nothing (other than high standard AT readings) to compare it with. I didn't feel it was my place to comment on the typos or the grammar, nor on the quality of the reading - particularly if this turned out to be an endorsed reader.

Umm, it seems to me it is kind of irrelevant whether the reader is Endorsed or not - if you weren't happy with the reading, especially for the reasons you stated, then you should have said so. Actually, even more so if the reader was Endorsed.

Tell me, had you received this reading from someone here at AT (and I have to disagree with your comment about this, from some of the ones I have seen) what would you have done ? At least with a TABI reading (free or otherwise), there *is* somewhere/someone to go to to register a remark/comment/complaint.

May I suggest that, if the reader is not yet endorsed, the request for feedback says something along the lines of "please send any feedback to me or my mentor" and give the mentor's email address as well. If I had been presented with that option I would, I think, have contacted the mentor to make my feelings known.

A good idea - I'll pass it on.

ribbit
 

ribbitcat

gregory said:
That is a suggestion which would seem to me to be common sense. Even places like e-bay ask for feedback; it is one very good way of deciding who to buy from; if tabi readers automatically asked for feedback (which woould not need to be made public) it would give them pointers on where to improve in ways which a mentor might not spot.

I don't know of one TABI reader who *doesn't* ask for feedback. Unfortunately, the feedback rate is around a mere 30% for most folks ....and from what I have seen, the rudest, nastiest, most personal "feedback" comes from people who claim that they themselves are tarot readers ...and I most certainly do *not* mean to imply that Netzach is in this category, just in case anyone was reading anything into my comment ....

Netzach's suggestion about feeding back to the mentor was the one I was agreeing with :)

ribbit