Let's define "accuracy"

[minrice]

In my opinion, a high degree of accuracy wouldn't necessarily be something you could gauge right on the spot because the things you'd come up with on the spot could be good guesses, in all likelihood. For instance, saying, "You're having trouble in your relationship." because if a person has been in a relationship for more than a month, there are probably at least minor problems cropping up. Or saying, "You're under stress at work" is a statement that 99% of people who have a job would find to be true. So that wouldn't be a very true barometer of your reading ability. The term "accuracy" would mean statements or predictions that would come true later on, right? A reader wouldn't necessarily be purposely saying such things with the intent to be dishonest by making those guesses. They could be amazing themselves right along with the sitter with their "accuracy". But accuracy for me wouldn't be something like that, it would be things you predict or things about the person's life that go a lot deeper than generalities.

A reader who sees a past abortion or rape or the death of a fiance or something like this could be said to be "accurate". Or who sees that a sitter is planning to murder someone when they haven't said anything to the reader that would touch on the desire to do that could then be said to be "accurate" at the time of the reading (extreme example---probably few people actually see something so drastic, even though it could happen). If they touched on those things without being given any clues, then I think the reading could be said to be "accurate" at the time it was given. Otherwise, you can't really determine on the spot that you're accurate, can you?

I agree with you don't always know right away if you are accurate, and time does tell. Time for the sitter to go away and think about what you've told them and maybe they will let you know, maybe they won't. In that case on the spot accuracy you won't know about. Actually I think we don't often know just how accurate we are!

But I think that just because you pinpoint common issues in a person's life, like work conflict, relationship conflict, etc. doesn't mean you aren't an accurate reader. Common issues yes, but I think that picking up on them is more than just making a good guess. You still have to see and feel that in the cards, and even though those are common issues it doesn't make them any less valid or any less accurate when you pick up on them. Especially if the sitter feels that these are issues that are dominating their life right now and they do want to work with and change these issues. I think these generalities are important because they do mask bigger, deeper issues, and therefore you need to be able to pick up on them if you're going to go there. And I think the thing is that people ask about the generalities, they don't usually ask "What is my role in this mess" or "What can I do to change my behavior?" it's the generalities they ask about and so to get those generalities right, to be accurate about them, opens the door.

So to me an accurate, ideal reading is twofold...One where you, as the reader are able to relate the cards to the sitter and to the question/issue at hand and you know that your instincts are right. And two, the reading truly resonates with the sitter. So when I say my reading was accurate, or this deck is reading accurately! that's what I mean.

Pming you Griz, I have an unrelated something...

 

[woodland.goddess]

I only read for myself right now, because I'm just starting out with tarot. I consider a reading accurate if it resonates with what's going on in my life or with what I'm feeling at the time. If it takes my breath away, I consider the reading successful.

If the cards provide me with advice or a different perspective on something, I would also consider my spread or draw accurate. As for reading for other people ... I really have no experience with that. I suppose I'd apply the same criteria that I apply to my own readings. If it resonates with them, I've done a good job.

 

[Umbrae]

Oh boy! This topic again!

Fortune telling of all types is incredibly popular in Japan, and a fortune teller's reputation is based on one thing only. Whether or not they "Ataru", meaning, if they predict correctly. In big cities good fortune tellers with good reputations who always "Ataru" make a lot of money. I am an amateur, and don't charge anyone, and just read for friends and acquaintances, but I still want to "Ataru".

The definition of Accuracy: freedom from mistake or error.

One of the definitions of Validation: well-grounded or justifiable: being at once relevant and meaningful.

IMO – for a reader validation is more important than accuracy.

Of even more importance. We are only one portion of the world. Tarot in Asia currently dwarfs the western ‘market’. Asian Tarot often lacks symbolism that we westerners use to define Tarot. Character driven decks are common.

In a global sense – our opinions may be incredibly worthless and wrong. In MY opinion, accuracy is usually a term used by folks who need their ego's inflated.

I've seen what appeard to be horrid readings containing no accuracy become validated later in time, and 'accurate readings' fall apart. Accurate readings often concur with the sitters perception of reality at the time (which may have nothing to do with actual reality).

Please ask Mary Greer or Rachel Pollack state whey they DO NOT want to have accurate readings (I won't put words in their mouths even though I know the answers).

Accuracy, validation, ataru. Myself - I want the latter two and do not wish the first.

Other threads of interest:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=92005&page=1&pp=10

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=41791

 

[Scion]

I tend to do predictive readings, 'cause frankly that's what people want for the most part. Accuracy is important to me, not as something to want but as something to monitor... If I'm not providing a consistent degree of accuracy then I'm really doing my job, right?

Accuracy for me comes down to specificity and access. If I provide information that was not available to the client or me prior to the reading, if that information is useful and specific, if I read somethig there that permits them to make an informed change or choice THEN I'm being accurate. Sometimes the accuracy (i.e. the gauge of the specific, useful information in the reading) is not apparent for quite a while. I think the important thing is that you don't attach too much weight to the idea of being "right" whatever that means. Validation is nice. So are presents. I don't expect either, and I'm pleased when they surprise me by appearing whenever that might be.

To my mind, the more generic and vague the reading the more easily "accurate" it can be. It's easy for me to predict that people are insecure, want to be loved, want promotions, worry about their relationshiops, crave empowerment... because those are so universal as to be meaningless. This is what I'd call cold reading. One of the things I loathe about the psychologization of Tarot in the 1970s is exactly this bland, self-help nothingness that leeches the meaning and imporrt out of everything it touches. Everyone standing around patting each other on the back and being proud of repeated clichés. There are several thousand years of divinatory history where that mushy, affirmational twaddle just wasn't going to keep your head on your neck. Wanting to feel proud of yourself is a gauntlet not a guarantee. You have to earn the praise or it's worthless.

Which is one of the reasons I think the lust for result is such a trap. Whenever people tell me they're 98% accurate then I always think to myself "I guess you aren't saying much that's specific or useful." The danger of wanting to please people is that rather than doing your best work, you do your safest and least interesting work. This is why Moliere is Moliere. I see readings like I see Art, if you aren't getting somethings wrong then you aren't taking enough risks.

This is another reason that I think that reading over decades is essential... committing to the process over LONG stretches of your life. 19 out of 20 clients won't come back to pat you on the head... but every once in a while, you run into a client in passing or someone gives a referral and you find out that a reading accomplished something wonderful... and that's worth a thousand people telling you how "great" and "spot-on" a reading is ten seconds after it's finished. Again, it's the way I see my writing... I couldn't give a damn if people shake my hand after a show and tell me it's great. That's empty and sweet. It's pleasant for the full 15 seconds it takes to deliver and receive. What's more meaningful is the person who writes me letters 6 months later or calls my agent out of the blue or tracks down my email address and says "that show was important, this scene changed my perspective, I quote this character all the time..."

Accuracy is essential, but the DESIRE for accuracy is a trap... the desire can distract you from the real job at hand and keep your readings squarely in the safe and empty terrain of cliché. So I'd also add that for a reader accuracy is a by-product and not a goal.

Scion

 

[Umbrae]

Accuracy is essential, but the DESIRE for accuracy is a trap... the desire can distract you from the real job at hand and keep your readings squarely in the safe and empty terrain of cliché. So I'd also add that for a reader accuracy is a by-product and not a goal.

Um...um...er...uh (kicks rock) yeah. I have to agree. I think its mebbe we talk different out west.

I seek to have my readings be(come) accurate – and thus validated. But I do not wish to be an accurate reader, which I see as an ego trap that leads in the opposite direction.

I prefer the term validation over accuracy. Though both are nouns, one is harder and more immediate and serves as an ego pump much more readily than the other.

I think Accurate as a goal is very different than accuracy as a result. One I see as pappekak, the other as Pizza with Italian Sausage.

ETA: But I really like the word, Ataru.

 

[The crowned one]

IMO – for a reader validation is more important than accuracy.

In MY opinion, accuracy is usually a term used by folks who need their ego's inflated.

I agree with this.Accuracy is about me, I use it as a gauge. I like it when I am accurate. The more accurate the happier I am, not necessarily the sitter who may become quite upset.

As the question is define "accuracy", My definition is simply; it is "hits", for the reader during the reading, how many "hits" do I get, that is my instant gratification factor, and for the sitter, their amazement factor.

More importantly is the long term factor as they did not come to me to hear what they know (well they did, but also to hear their future). This is what matters to the sitter, my "hits" in the long term, wiether they make them self fulfilling prophesies, or, I really saw the future is not relevant to accuracy because it comes down to a percentage or ratio: hit vs. miss. It has nothing to do with helping someone. Facts often hurt.

 

[Grizabella]

Yeah, what Scion said. All of it.

(Joins Umbrae in kicking rocks.)

That's just what I was getting at. You can't give a degree of accuracy if you generalize and hit it right. There are certain things that are true for everybody and just getting those right doesn't count.

You can't give a degree of accuracy because you're not going to know how things turn out for everyone you read for. People move away. You read for strangers. People get peeved and don't keep in touch with you. People die.

You can't call yourself accurate if you just make a lucky guess.

I strive for being useful, helpful, and relevant to the lives I touch. I want to bring compassion, empathy, and insight. And yes, I do predictive readings. I don't think a Tarot reader can avoid it. If they try to avoid it, then they're going to stifle their reading ability. I also think they run the risk of just giving out their own advice and opinions instead of flat out just reading the message in the cards. They're going to be too conscious of themselves and how they're doing to really be effective.

(I'm not talking about trained counselors who use Tarot in their practice. I'm talking about people who read the cards because they've studied the cards, not psychology or psychiatry.)

Coming back to add that giving advice isn't wrong if your sitter asks for it, but it has to be the advice the cards have for them, not what your advice would be.

 

[avalonian]

If I provide information that was not available to the client or me prior to the reading, if that information is useful and specific, if I read somethig there that permits them to make an informed change or choice THEN I'm being accurate. Sometimes the accuracy (i.e. the gauge of the specific, useful information in the reading) is not apparent for quite a while.

I think that's an excellent explanation.

I had a reading some years ago when the reader asked if a promotion at work was likely, to which I replied in the negative as there was no inkling of such a thing happening. Less than two months later our jobs were regraded and we had to apply for the new higher posts or look for another at our current grade. If it hadn't been for that reading I would never have had the confidence to apply for the higher graded post which I got.

So, at the time of the reading I may not have perceived him as being accurate, but I did later.

 

[nisaba]

One I see as pappekak,

Not to detract from any of your comments which are always well worth the reading, but ... pappekak, que?

 

[nisaba]

So, at the time of the reading I may not have perceived him as being accurate, but I did later.

It's a shame, too, that you don't always keep contact-details for readers who read for you. That's why I keep business cards on my table for them to take when I'm reading, so if they need or want to, they can get back to me.

I'd dearly love to find the reader who read for me 20+ years ago that I mentioned in another thread, where I laughed in her face when she told me I'd live in a house with a type of tree I particularly dislike. And the other one who told me "broken letterbox" (two houses in succession had these, many years later).

Sometimes even we, as readers ourselves, unthinkingly erode a reader's confidence, and never get a change to say "Hey, you dunn-did good work back there!"