Pet peeves

[madhatter00o]

Pet peeve #3 are readers who throw in a bunch of cards with no positions or explanations and then read something vague and even unrelated like 'you'll meet a tall dark stranger' out of Queen of Cups, 5 Cups and 2 Pents. I try to explain each card as a reader because not everyone knows the meanings and certainly people can't know the personal meanings the cards have for me, so opening up the reading process makes it easier to understand why the reader came to the conclusion they did.

I'll agree that the ominous readings without explanation of how the reader came to that conclusion is absurd, but spreads without particular positions aren't uncommon, especially if one is using a TdM or historical deck. But then, those spreads are usually based on an open reading method, which places the left-most position as the past and everything else as after that, sometimes extending into the future (though not necessarily so).

I guess a new pet peeve of mine is very basic, but it's when readers don't look at the spread as a whole. They'll read card-by-card without really explaining any interaction or links between them. I find this happens a lot in the Exchange threads, which is one reason (out of several) that I've stopped going into that forum.

 

[Barleywine]

I guess a new pet peeve of mine is very basic, but it's when readers don't look at the spread as a whole. They'll read card-by-card without really explaining any interaction or links between them.

Absolutely. The excellent German word gestalt defines the antithesis of this phenomenon for me. I see a spread as an organic whole first and then the sum (and usually more than the sum) of its parts. It's probably book-learning without ever making the intuitive leap to a more holistic outlook that promotes this weakness.

 

[crystalrose]

My pet peeve #1 are people who request for readings, give zero background info and then get upset when the interpretation goes to different direction from what they wanted to see; or when I didn't realise this in fact is, or is not, a romantic situation they are asking about. Often these same people also give one sentence feedback, such as 'didn't resonate' and leave me hanging with trying to figure what was the context of the question in the first place and why it didn't resonate.

Pet peeve #2 are querents who won't accept the message. I understand that I don't have all the information at hand but I have a reasonable hold on the card meanings. If a querent gets a row of 5 Swords, 10 Swords and 8 Cups; no, it's not very likely that it means the other person actually secretly has loving feelings and is building a solid relationship.

Pet peeve #3 are readers who throw in a bunch of cards with no positions or explanations and then read something vague and even unrelated like 'you'll meet a tall dark stranger' out of Queen of Cups, 5 Cups and 2 Pents. I try to explain each card as a reader because not everyone knows the meanings and certainly people can't know the personal meanings the cards have for me, so opening up the reading process makes it easier to understand why the reader came to the conclusion they did.

#3 - in general I agree, and it's annoying when they pull 10 cards & irrelevant non-specific details get thrown in that have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

BUT sometimes I pull cards & instantly and abruptly get the answer, and I really couldn't tell you how each individual card relates to the meaning. Barley wine sums it up very well with "gestalt." I don't mind explaining certain cards, but I don't find card reading to be as logical and straightforward as you describe.

Readers can run into problems with the methodical card by card method b/c it then turns into a can't see the forest for the trees scenario. Yea sure, the cards may mean something individually but put together, the story can be totally different. The nuances of a situation get missed. Ive seen some truly terrible readings done in this fashion.

 

[Saskia]

#3 - in general I agree, and it's annoying when they pull 10 cards & irrelevant non-specific details get thrown in that have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

BUT sometimes I pull cards & instantly and abruptly get the answer, and I really couldn't tell you how each individual card relates to the meaning. Barley wine sums it up very well with "gestalt." I don't mind explaining certain cards, but I don't find card reading to be as logical and straightforward as you describe.

Readers can run into problems with the methodical card by card method b/c it then turns into a can't see the forest for the trees scenario. Yea sure, the cards may mean something individually but put together, the story can be totally different. The nuances of a situation get missed. Ive seen some truly terrible readings done in this fashion.

Yes I understand your point Crystalrose, and agree at least partly.

I'm one of those card by card methodology readers in the sense that for me each card has a set meaning (or a bundle of set meanings and layers) which can then be expanded in relation to other cards. I appreciate intuitive readings and I'm happy to accept them as a method - no need to use positions or "book" meanings - but I don't like it when this is not explained or described at all in the reading. It makes it all look very haphazard and guesswork, in particular if the intuitive meaning differs a lot from the "book meaning".

The book meanings by no means are the only correct ones, but it's just difficult for the querent (me) to trust the reading that doesn't seem to be based on anything or is not explained. At least I'd like to hear "this card gives me an instant feeling of xyz, because of abc, and this card links to that card because of....". Just some explanation, please

 

[Awakened Queen]

Yes I understand your point Crystalrose, and agree at least partly.

I'm one of those card by card methodology readers in the sense that for me each card has a set meaning (or a bundle of set meanings and layers) which can then be expanded in relation to other cards. I appreciate intuitive readings and I'm happy to accept them as a method - no need to use positions or "book" meanings - but I don't like it when this is not explained or described at all in the reading. It makes it all look very haphazard and guesswork, in particular if the intuitive meaning differs a lot from the "book meaning".

The book meanings by no means are the only correct ones, but it's just difficult for the querent (me) to trust the reading that doesn't seem to be based on anything or is not explained. At least I'd like to hear "this card gives me an instant feeling of xyz, because of abc, and this card links to that card because of....". Just some explanation, please

Let's be honest here, some people pull these interpretations out their ass so they can continue to ask questions in a reading exchange. They phone it in, because they don't want to put any effort into it. They don't want to practice, they just want to know if so and so has romantic feelings for them.

 

[Barleywine]

Let's be honest here, some people pull these interpretations out their ass so they can continue to ask questions in a reading exchange. They phone it in, because they don't want to put any effort into it. They don't want to practice, they just want to know if so and so has romantic feelings for them.

I'm not quite that cynical, but I do believe an overwhelming majority of these "seekers" are merely eyeing a potential emotional/physical hook-up and aren't really all that interested in the mechanics of the process. Free readings under the paper-thin guise of "learning," eh?

 

[Kgirl]

Let's be honest here, some people pull these interpretations out their ass so they can continue to ask questions in a reading exchange. They phone it in, because they don't want to put any effort into it. They don't want to practice, they just want to know if so and so has romantic feelings for them.

Yes

I'm not quite that cynical, but I do believe an overwhelming majority of these "seekers" are merely eyeing a potential emotional/physical hook-up and aren't really all that interested in the mechanics of the process. Free readings under the paper-thin guise of "learning," eh?

... and yes

Thank God there are rules where you have control over who you can exchange with

 

[crystalrose]

Yes I understand your point Crystalrose, and agree at least partly.

I'm one of those card by card methodology readers in the sense that for me each card has a set meaning (or a bundle of set meanings and layers) which can then be expanded in relation to other cards. I appreciate intuitive readings and I'm happy to accept them as a method - no need to use positions or "book" meanings - but I don't like it when this is not explained or described at all in the reading. It makes it all look very haphazard and guesswork, in particular if the intuitive meaning differs a lot from the "book meaning".

The book meanings by no means are the only correct ones, but it's just difficult for the querent (me) to trust the reading that doesn't seem to be based on anything or is not explained. At least I'd like to hear "this card gives me an instant feeling of xyz, because of abc, and this card links to that card because of....". Just some explanation, please

Yea I'm definitely not knocking you as a reader Saskia. I've seen your threads and enjoy your take on the cards.

As far as intuitive style card readings, when someone is actually reading intuitively (and not just making stuff up), it's not completely removed from the book meanings IMO. The meanings of the cards are right there in the pictures. I know the basic meanings of all the cards & that acts as a backbone, but visual details in the cards like body language, whatever emotions I feel, the layers of story in the cards as a whole, etc will flesh out the reading. You've never had an experience where you pulled cards & had a flash of insight that didn't necessarily make sense?

If it's a reader I trust & who I know to be consistently accurate, I think it's interesting when they say something unusual. And I can usually figure out how they got there by thinking on the cards a bit. But sometimes I will ask, how did you arrive at xyz conclusion? And they're usually cool about telling me.

The thing is, people here hardly ever ask questions cuz like someone else said, they usually just want their answers. Or they want you to confirm something they already believe. And I'm not about to write a novel about my reading process if they're gonna go ask 5 other people within the following 10 minutes the exact same question they asked me.

 

[crystalrose]

Let's be honest here, some people pull these interpretations out their ass so they can continue to ask questions in a reading exchange. They phone it in, because they don't want to put any effort into it. They don't want to practice, they just want to know if so and so has romantic feelings for them.

Yea... they give you a half-assed reading b/c all they care about is what they want to know and not about making it a fair exchange. Except for a select few readers, I keep my expectations low & consider an exchange basically a feedback reading with the side bonus of an interesting nugget every once in a blue.

What I don't like are exchange threads that don't require feedback at all. I stay out of those. And I'm puzzled how anybody can learn anything from participating.

 

[Padma]

The thing is, people here hardly ever ask questions cuz like someone else said, they usually just want their answers. Or they want you to confirm something they already believe. And I'm not about to write a novel about my reading process if they're gonna go ask 5 other people within the following 10 minutes the exact same question they asked me.

Yup, yup, yup! That last part, especially, that I bolded is what drives me the battiessssssst!