Padma
That is NOT what Padma said. You have completely taken me out of context. I never once said that.
Padma said this: (read the bold bit).
Discrepancies in popular readings
That is NOT what Padma said. You have completely taken me out of context. I never once said that.
Padma said this: (read the bold bit).
nuttyprofessor
I've had a quick look with the search engine, and it seems that kings and warlords did consult oracles in the far past:https://luccav.com/2014/01/24/a-war-consultant-and-the-art-of-divination/. And as in elections, in battle there are a lot of free wills.
Statistics is also applied to the social sciences, in spite of a society consists of multiple people.
The idea is that a group of people behave like one big organism.
Statistics is also applied to the social sciences, in spite of a society consists of multiple people.
The idea is that a group of people behave like one big organism.
Barleywine
As I understand it, this is specifically why there were court astrologers, and before that bone-casting, bird-flight-scrutinizing, entrail-spreading shamans. It was all about auguries - choosing a propitious time for starting a campaign. Come to think of it, the Clinton campaign could have used on of those. It might have worked better than pollsters or pundits.
Amanda
Unfortunately, "everybody wins" isn't how tarot works... every reader is not always good at reading the cards every single time, plain and simple. Either the cards are accurately read or they're not. Different cards may come up for different readers in order to make those predictions -- question yourself/your methods if a discrepancy is observed and take your knockings where you've earned them; don't make the same mistake twice next time. Jennalyn did a reading where the 7 of Wands showed a Trump win; I did a reading where the 7 of Wands came up for Clinton -- I didn't look at the 7 of Wands for my reading and say, "Oh well /my/ 7 of Wands came up for Clinton, so that /must/ mean that Clinton will win." The 7 of Wands (and tarot) doesn't work that way; that's a competitive ego and pride talking.
Same card, different positions; different readers, same conclusion/accurate prediction -- we were both on top of /our own/ cards that day.
Same card, different positions; different readers, same conclusion/accurate prediction -- we were both on top of /our own/ cards that day.
Barleywine
A nicely-reasoned point. I would have interpreted the 7 of Wands in the outcome position as "inconclusive," showing an embattled state with no clear victor in sight at the time of the reading. (I see it as a trade-off between holding the high ground and confronting multiple assailants). The Golden Dawn considered the card to show only "possible victory," which I wouldn't hang my hat on. There are still considerable obstacles and difficulties to be overcome.
Saskia
I think this particular election was difficult to predict, because technically both won. HC won the popular vote by 2 million votes; but DT won the presidency due to the electoral college vote. I guess there's still a theoretical chance DT won't be inaugurated as a president due to the election scam / hack issue (were Russians involved or not and to what extent?). The whole situation is so up in the air it's not a surprise the cards were all over the place.
Barleywine
It's probably more precise to say that Clinton won the popular vote in the major population centers (Far West, Northeast and Greater Chicago). I watched an interesting video on the creation of the Electoral College. There is a concept called "the tyranny of the majority" - hijacking of an election by one powerful demographic, essentially shutting out everyone else. That potential seems to have been the impetus behind its creation. At any rate, it seems to have operated as designed even though it appears to defy logic. My prediction was based more on individual indicators of success for the two candidates than on major demographic shifts.
Amanda
In general (because we are not allowed to discuss this particular forum), when you have groups of people meeting to learn anything, including tarot, whether that is on an online forum, or in meetup groups, or what-have-you, there is a risk for negative group thinking. That is to say, it is /good/ to have commonly shared meanings to learn and understand something like tarot cards to a point. When that point is reached or exceeded in some situation, the group format no longer fits because a more individualized or personal learning experience is required, which I believe is the case for "popular readings" such as predicting a presidential election. For example, if the majority of a group does not believe that tarot can make predictions, then an individual within that group who believes tarot can make predictions is the one that suffers the consequences of group thinking, if they do not break away from that group belief and go their own way with their learning. It's a Hierophant-situation of teaching and learning in groups; a card that often gets the blame for sameness. However, the Hierophant is a 5, so the ultimate Hierophant will support the common, while having built-in customization options for the individual(s) that need to go different directions from that base of knowledge.
You gave an example of the 6 of Wands and the 10 of Swords -- cards that commonly show a winner (6) and a loser (10). I have interpreted those cards in so many different ways (as well as the other 76), that those keywords or common associations do not hold too much of a notion in my mind anymore. I still understand those basic, common meanings but they hardly show themselves to me these days. Currently, the 6 of Wands has had to do with "making the decision that puts your best foot forward" for me, while currently, the 10 of Swords has had to do with wanting "something deeper" in one's life. Not very "common" to what a learning group would say about those cards, right? Accurate meanings, for me, however.
Making accurate predictions with tarot is not chance; there is someone behind them that knew how to learn and applied their learned tarot skills to make an "educated" guess (from the support of the common experience as well as the personal).
There are a lot of deterrents to someone learning tarot within a group:
-Someone may simply not like you and decide not to listen to anything you have to say.
-Someone may decide that what you have to say doesn't fit the group mentality and decides not to give you credit where it's due.
-Someone may not like /how/ you say what you have to say and decide that what you're saying doesn't have merit because of that.
-Someone may not be ready to hear what truth you have to say and so they deny or disagree.
-Someone may not understand your level of learning, and they won't until they go through it themselves, if they do that is, and they won't if the group does not support that individualized learning... like an active researcher reporting findings back to the group.
-Sometimes, you are simply wrong, and it's hard to tell with all the previous standing in the way, but also why a personal and individualized connection to learning the tarot is important, because if all else fails, you have YOU and your best judgment.
There are a lot of benefits to learning something in a group as well, but what you are going to learn in a group is going to cater to the more "basic" or "obvious" -- you can only go as fast as the slowest horse, so to speak, unless you take those risks and break away from group-think.
In all my time, tarot has never failed to cater to my level of understanding. I've had to make mistakes and wrong predictions in order to learn something new, and I will likely continue to do so as long as I am learning tarot. I tend not to learn while I'm 'working' (getting paid) with tarot, but when I am utilizing tarot for learning purposes, it is so very exciting to discover a new meaning in a card -- like an archeologist finding something "lost". I love it!
Saskia
This goes slightly OT but isn't that what democracy is in essence? It is the tyranny of the majority and in best versions, this majority is benevolent or understanding towards minorities. It baffles me that for Americans, 2 million votes from Dallas for example are less democratic than 2 million votes gathered around the country. They are still all people with opinions that should count. Ironically, who has hijacked the power is the minority of super-rich who are able to fund politicians liberally.
Yes it can be argued that tarot should still be able to answer who wins *the presidency*, the ultimate price. I think that Amanda's explanation is the most likely, supported by what Padma said about the decision streams of millions of individuals; and what I said about who really won if we count the votes and if this Russian involvement turns out to change things.
Papa Tango
If tarot had any real power to 'predict the future' as some sort of fixed outcome proposition--there would be a WHOLE LOT of wealthy people with a deck stuck in their back pockets... 
Everything is a statistical proposition in the determination of outcomes. Some kinds, such as legalized gambling with gaming devices have quite well defined probability tables. This is why the house will always win on an averaged basis. People are another matter--yet they "usually" follow a set of proscribed behavioral rules and patterns--that given the presentation and motivation of an individual may shed light on an outcome.
That said, by and large from what I can tell from this forum and several others--card readers, scryers, diviners, and others got this election totally wrong. They should feel in good company though, as the majority of political analysts, statisticians, pollsters, and pundits failed the mark too!
Although I am playing with fire here, the "two party guess" questions always make me cognitively roll my eyes. "Will I meet someone." "Will we get back together." The answer to the first always concerns just how motivated someone is to accomplish that. Someone who does not proactively take actions and engage others is much more unlikely to accomplish their ends than someone who does. For a significant number, the 'future' and a positive reading is little more than a psychological kick to get someone looking and engaging. As to the other, well there is indeed a saying about the definition of insanity...
I think (emphasis on the I) the most powerful predicative of the future for tarot readings is that aforementioned factor of manipulating the thinking and motivations of a SINGLE individual--who is often bubbling over with personal "tells" as to their likelihood of any outcome. Perhaps a matter of introspection or exhortation. Horse races and political events not so much as these are multivariate events. Still as they say, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every so often--especially when it is a 50/50 probability!
Everything is a statistical proposition in the determination of outcomes. Some kinds, such as legalized gambling with gaming devices have quite well defined probability tables. This is why the house will always win on an averaged basis. People are another matter--yet they "usually" follow a set of proscribed behavioral rules and patterns--that given the presentation and motivation of an individual may shed light on an outcome.
That said, by and large from what I can tell from this forum and several others--card readers, scryers, diviners, and others got this election totally wrong. They should feel in good company though, as the majority of political analysts, statisticians, pollsters, and pundits failed the mark too!
Although I am playing with fire here, the "two party guess" questions always make me cognitively roll my eyes. "Will I meet someone." "Will we get back together." The answer to the first always concerns just how motivated someone is to accomplish that. Someone who does not proactively take actions and engage others is much more unlikely to accomplish their ends than someone who does. For a significant number, the 'future' and a positive reading is little more than a psychological kick to get someone looking and engaging. As to the other, well there is indeed a saying about the definition of insanity...
I think (emphasis on the I) the most powerful predicative of the future for tarot readings is that aforementioned factor of manipulating the thinking and motivations of a SINGLE individual--who is often bubbling over with personal "tells" as to their likelihood of any outcome. Perhaps a matter of introspection or exhortation. Horse races and political events not so much as these are multivariate events. Still as they say, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every so often--especially when it is a 50/50 probability!
