Testimonials of Tarot Accuracy

Barleywine

I've always found it very "iffy" to try choosing decisively between two outcomes using any method of divination. The way I usually approach it is as showing currents or tendencies that in the best cases shade over into strong possibilities and even probabilities. But it's still nothing I would "bet the farm on" unless there was strong corroborating evidence from other sources. I will say, though, that I did predict a Trump win from the very start, and the cards were never ambivalent about it. I've spent quite a bit of time creating spreads to put "meat on the bones" of these interpretations so they have more substance than a simple coin toss. This is the latest one:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=270403
 

gregory

we see it quite often in new members. I have 95% accuracy, etc. You might read through some pages there.
You are EVIL })
 

AJ

no evil meant, or disrespect, it just always surprises me when someone says that. I'd like to op to pursue that and come back and tell us how it is quantified. I'm an info junkie, I like to know the how and why of everything.

I often tell new members that we love new members! How else to keep the churn fresh?
 

Ebony

Others have already answered the aspect of your question regarding where to find this - but I thought I would add a little warning about accuracy in general.

First, testimonials that you read are based on the individual's perspective of what was helpful to them, which is a very biased thing indeed. For instance, someone could actually read a situation accurately but, because the querent doesn't want to hear it, they say it is bad or wrong. So the response from the querent can be that it is wrong, even when the message is actually correct. Even readings of the present are subjective because whatever the individual doesn't want to hear is going to be denied or blocked out (some people are better about this than others, admittedly) Then, you can have readings that are actually not accurate, but because the message is what the querent wanted to hear they report that it is in fact accurate. (I imagine that this phenomenon probably would put some professional readers in a hot spot, as they would have to decide if they want to just give accurate readings of the truth, regardless of the querent's response to it, or if they want to read for the parts of the truth that the querent is able to accept to keep their accuracy and customer satisfaction ratings high. I have also met some readers that admittedly make things more positive than they are just so the customers give positive feedback and leave feeling that the reading was accurate.)

Then you have readings of the future. Since the future isn't set in stone, it is rather difficult to gauge the accuracy of these readings as well. For instance, someone could have a very high reported rate of success at reading the future just because it so-happened that what they predicted did come to pass, but that some person could very well have their next predictive reading not come to pass because some element has changed that has caused the most likely thread of possibility to not become reality. You can also have someone who has had pretty low accuracy with predictive readings, but it may be that there were just changing influences that altered what happened, so they may have actually seen what was most likely at the time, but perhaps what they have read for just contained more variability than what other people read for. How could you even tell if this was the case though? So that's extremely hard to gauge. The best people I have ever met at doing prophecy readings are occasionally wrong because of sheer fact that the future isn't set in stone.

There is also the personality dynamic. It may just be that reader's own psychological understanding better matches up with some querent's than others (and thus they can deliver information in a way that is more salient to some people more than others.) For instance, with some people, I can say very little and they just know what I am trying to say because they have a similar understanding of the world. With others, the communication is more laborious as their worldview is so different from my own that certain things are lost in translation. Based on each person's perspective and understanding about the world, the things that are said are going to be more salient and understandable to some types of people over others. This is an extremely complicated topic though, but the gist of it is that some people get along better than others. Some people "click" well and others seem to be speaking separate languages. So even the mode of communication, the way things are worded, and the understandings/perspectives of the reader and querent, and how these mix, can have an impact on the perceived value and accuracy of a reading.

Anyways, best of luck in your search for this elusive beast called accuracy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Barleywine

In a word (or two), the evidence is informal or "anecdotal," not rigorously proven in any scientific sense. But most of my clients are looking for a broader picture of future possibilities anyway, not pin-point precision on any single event; I call what I offer "situational awareness and developmental insight." However, I did create a detailed timing spread that I've only offered to fellow readers so far. I could never fit it into a 20-minute or half-hour client session.