The Tarot is random...

[JSNYC]

...clearly comes from someone who has no idea what tarot is about. I don't recall ever interpreting the same card exactly the same way in every reading. Even if I got exactly the same spread. Because a reading is much more than just a list of card meanings.

Yes, I did mention that my friend had no prior experience with the Tarot, and he admitted that he "doesn't get it".

...Many people believe that the cards are a message from a higher being or our higher selves, depending on their spiritual beliefs, and for them the cards are not random. Even though you cannot see or grasp rationally from where the tarot messages come from, it doesn't make them necessarily random.

This seems to be the common theme of the recent posts, which makes me think I failed miserably in presenting this concept. Why does the label "random" automatically assume that there absolutely cannot be an "intelligent" order? If the cards are divinely ordered then I would say that proves that the cards are random (according to the definition of "random" that I was presenting). The point of my post was to show how asinine it is to assign a distribution, any distribution pattern to something deemed random. I should have titled my post differently, instead of "Tarot is random..." it should have been "Tarot is unknown..."

I believe that every single spread I draw is correct, I also believe that the Tarot is 100% accurate (while being 100% random)... If anyone thinks that contradicts my original post, then I can only say that what I was trying to say in my original post wasn't communicated very well... And I have no clue where the misunderstanding lies... I would only add that I believe the label "random" is being confused with "statistically random", they are two completely different things, as I tried to propose in my original post. Statistical randomness is a farce (at least in this context). Everyone has heard the axiom, "lies, damn lies, and statistics" right?

Or am I misunderstanding the theme of the posts? I expected those that believe in science to disagree with my post, not those that believe in mysticism, I thought I was arguing your case....

I posted this link in two other threads, I am not sure it was understood then. So I will post it a third time (3rd time is a charm! ), maybe it will make more sense in this thread.

Click here to view the Blinded by Science video on YouTube

 

[MareSaturni]

This seems to be the common theme of the recent posts, which makes me think I failed miserably in presenting this concept. Why does the label "random" automatically assume that there absolutely cannot be an "intelligent" order? If the cards are divinely ordered then I would say that proves that the cards are random (according to the definition of "random" that I was presenting). The point of my post was to show how asinine it is to assign a distribution, any distribution pattern to something deemed random. I should have titled my post differently, instead of "Tarot is random..." it should have been "Tarot is unknown..."

I didn't say that random meant unintelligent. On the contrary, I said I saw no problem whatsoever in the "randomness" of the tarot. What I was trying to show is that not everyone sees tarot as random, some people don't ever believe in random. So the supposed "randomness" of the tarot isn't a universal concept.

Now, if you are saying that random is still a pattern, but one we cannot see, then it's a different kind of "randomness".

The problem I think is that choice of the word "random" because it automatically gives the whole post an idea of mathematical or statistical randomness. People start thinking in terms of numbers and probabilities, perhaps not in the way you intended. You were actually trying to show tarot is above the "random" in a purely mathematical sense, but people understood it the other way round...

Click here to view the Blinded by Science video on YouTube

I'll see the link when I'm at home ( I'm at work right now)
Thanks for sharing!

 

[Glitterbird]

The problem I think is that choice of the word "random" because it automatically gives the whole post an idea of mathematical or statistical randomness. People start thinking in terms of numbers and probabilities, perhaps not in the way you intended. You were actually trying to show tarot is above the "random" in a purely mathematical sense, but people understood it the other way round...

Exactly what I thought!

 

[hukes]

JSNYC,

I also believe that a Tarot spread is random, and no matter what cards are in it, they are ALWAYS RIGHT. It it up to us, the readers, to find that one correct interpretation, being selfexploratory or divinatory. Any spread for any question is correct all the times. That summarizes my fascination with Tarot. But that fascination goes even further when I hear of the divination powers showed by some readers (mostly from people I know who have had the cards read to them face to face). I want to understand how that happens. Maybe I will never unlock the mystery, but trying is good enough a journey.

There have been times when a spread surprised me and spooked me, where I can only think "Wait. This can't be possible, how Tarot knows this?". At these times this brilliant Dilbert strip always comes to my mind:

http://www.random.org/analysis/dilbert.jpg

But, anyway, Tarot doesn't stop amazing me.

 

[JSNYC]

Now, if you are saying that random is still a pattern, but one we cannot see, then it's a different kind of "randomness".

No, I am saying that random means the complete absence of an (identifiable) pattern. So the application of a pattern as a fact, any pattern, including a distribution curve, is ridiculous.

The problem I think is that choice of the word "random" because it automatically gives the whole post an idea of mathematical or statistical randomness. People start thinking in terms of numbers and probabilities, perhaps not in the way you intended. You were actually trying to show tarot is above the "random" in a purely mathematical sense, but people understood it the other way round...

Yes!!! Thank you! And my post was trying to refute that very concept! But I wasn't trying to show that the Tarot is above "random", I was trying to show that Tarot can be "random" and still be divinely ordered, or whatever anyone wants to believe. The term random has been twisted, it has lost its mystical properties.

ETA:
Well, thank you Glitterbird and Hukes! And thank you for the excellent comic strip Hukes! I should have just waited to reply!

Yes, I am constantly amazed how something that is so random could be so consistently right!

 

[hukes]

The more one uses Tarot, the better one becomes at seeing messages (patterns).

I think, JSNYC, the Tarot is a tool that pushes our minds into performing feats that appear to be magical.

Arthur C. Clarke said:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I would adapt that quote to say:
Any sufficiently advanced technology OR MIND is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[elancl]

Please to define "standard deviation curve". I'm working on a PhD in Statistics and have never heard this phrase. Are you referring to the Normal Distribution curve (aka the Bell Curve) for which the standard deviation [a measure of variability] defines the shape of the curve? In which case that does not apply in any way to the "distribution" of tarot cards in a random spread. Specifically, the normal distribution is a continuous distribution, and any distribution of cards is discrete.

The cards are random in the mathematical sense. It is the human need to perceive order amongst randomness/chaos that presents us with the patterns and interpretations we give to them. Therein lies the "divine ordering" or whatever/however people want to define it.

 

[JSNYC]

Please to define "standard deviation curve". I'm working on a PhD in Statistics and have never heard this phrase. Are you referring to the Normal Distribution curve (aka the Bell Curve) for which the standard deviation [a measure of variability] defines the shape of the curve? In which case that does not apply in any way to the "distribution" of tarot cards in a random spread. Specifically, the normal distribution is a continuous distribution, and any distribution of cards is discrete.

Yes, I am referring to the bell curve. And yes, it doesn't apply to a single spread. The distribution only has meaning (if any) within the collection or sequence of spreads.

The cards are random in the mathematical sense. It is the human need to perceive order amongst randomness/chaos that presents us with the patterns and interpretations we give to them. Therein lies the "divine ordering" or whatever/however people want to define it.

Exactly!

However, you seem to be stating definitively that there is no pattern, I am saying there is no certainty, that is the meaning of randomness/chaos. It is just as likely that there is a pattern, as there isn't. (Especially if one accepts the premise that the Tarot is more than the sum of its mathematical parts.)

The random seed is an erratic constant.

Statistics assumes randomness is erratic, which is asinine and ridiculous, as hukes's comic so aptly illustrated. Statistics attempts to define the indefinable, and the assumptions often made when doing that is what makes most statistics garbage (when applied to concepts like the Tarot).

ETA:
I was perusing the random.org website that hukes's comic came from and stumbled upon this, I thought it was interesting (note: the link contains sound):
http://noosphere.princeton.edu

 

[The crowned one]

However, you seem to be stating definitively that there is no pattern, I am saying there is no certainty, that is the meaning of randomness/chaos. It is just as likely that there is a pattern, as there isn't. (Especially if one accepts the premise that the Tarot is more than the sum of its mathematical parts.)

It may seem like I am nick picking but distinguishing random from chaotic data is important here. They are far from the same. Chaotic we can find patterns. Really we are finding underlying order in apparently random data.

Fun topic.

 

[elancl]

Statistics assumes randomness is erratic, which is asinine and ridiculous, as hukes's comic so aptly illustrated. Statistics attempts to define the indefinable, and the assumptions often made when doing that is what makes most statistics garbage (when applied to concepts like the Tarot).

No. Emphatically No. Randomness is not erratic, and statistics does NOT assume that. Randomness is random. There is a difference.

Even within a collection or sequence of spreads, the bell curve does not necessarily have meaning. Every population has a distribution whether it is known/named or not. We could certainly describe each discrete distribution for popular spreads, and some may be quite different from Normal. Arguably, any spread will be quite different from Normal, because they will all be Discrete Uniform with only the probability parameter for each spread's distribution changing.

Yes, many basic statistical tests assume Normality, but generally, one tests whether that assumption holds before proceeding. If it doesn't, one finds alternative tests that do not require Normality. If we wanted to "test" Tarot statistically somehow, we would have to use an alternate test because the distributions are not Normal.

If Tarot is more than the sum of its parts (and I'm not saying it's not), then that is because of the human mind imposing order upon the randomness in the interpretation. The cards are cards. The process is random. It is the human element that moves it beyond Texas Hold'em.