Is this an invasion of privacy?

[JackofWands]

That's not to say that privacy as a concept isn't very complicated and to a large extend defined by each individual society. But there's no point in going there since the answers so far all seem to be coming from modern Westerners.

I think you'll find there are relatively few medieval Westerners on the forum.

 

[Barleywine]

I think you'll find there are relatively few medieval Westerners on the forum.

"Smile when ya say that, partner . . ." I, for one, am a dedicated atavist (is that a word?) about these things.

 

[chaosbloom]

I think you'll find there are relatively few medieval Westerners on the forum.

(Off-topic: Well no, of course not. But you might see responses from people living in pre-modern enclaves (villages etc.) from the Americas or mainland Europe, or Asians from areas where collectivist elements survive or dominate. The conception of privacy is very different there. An example of how conceptions of privacy are situational is thinking what is private for a soldier living in barracks where there's only a bed for impersonal personal space, communal showers and in certain special circumstances even personal letters and photos might become communal property. There's also a sociological perspective on the function of things like gossip which makes it even more complicated.)

 

[LeFou]

So everyone is thinking that it is effective? How have you verified that?

 

[Barleywine]

So everyone is thinking that it is effective? How have you verified that?

I'm not sure what part of the discussion you're referring to here. I don't include myself among this "everyone" regarding the effectiveness of reading minds with tarot. I think it's over-reaching. In my experience, tarot is most effective with events and actions, less so with intentions and emotions. I've never fully warmed up to the "psychological" model of either tarot or - lately - astrology.

 

[LeFou]

I think it's over-reaching.

So maybe you tried it, and found it to be not much better than (let's say) guessing? I'm wondering how does one determine that it worked (or not), given that there is no conversation with the person(s) being read.

 

[JackofWands]

(Off-topic: Well no, of course not. But you might see responses from people living in pre-modern enclaves (villages etc.) from the Americas or mainland Europe, or Asians from areas where collectivist elements survive or dominate. The conception of privacy is very different there. An example of how conceptions of privacy are situational is thinking what is private for a soldier living in barracks where there's only a bed for impersonal personal space, communal showers and in certain special circumstances even personal letters and photos might become communal property. There's also a sociological perspective on the function of things like gossip which makes it even more complicated.)

Worry not; I jest. I understand what you mean, I just found the phrasing amusing.

 

[JackofWands]

So everyone is thinking that it is effective? How have you verified that?

Personally, I've never found a reason to believe that third-party readings are effective. My reading style is dependent on give-and-take, and as you've pointed out, that's not possible in a third-party reading when there's no input from the object of the reading.

However, I think that whether or not these readings are effective is actually a moot point. For me, the attempt to read about someone without their consent is ill-advised, regardless of whether that reading proves accurate, because it betrays what I see as a disregard for others' desires (to be read for or not).

 

[Barleywine]

So maybe you tried it, and found it to be not much better than (let's say) guessing? I'm wondering how does one determine that it worked (or not), given that there is no conversation with the person(s) being read.

This is a good, thought-provoking question. It's been years since I've engaged in any "live" sessions aimed at deciphering the puzzle of some remote third-party's intentions (and not many ever came my way in the first place since most of my subjects were well past their hormone-driven, sexual-angst phase). And I shy away from the "thinks/feels" stuff here since - without face-to-face, real-time feedback - it seems kind of academic. (I'm sure it isn't to the seekers, but I have no interest in catering to wish-fulfillment fantasies).

So I don't have any fresh insights for you, but it would seem that the degree of follow-up we're able to have with the subject(s) of a reading would provide the best yardstick for measuring effectiveness. If it's a relationship question and the relationship ultimately fractures along the fault-lines identified in the reading (cheating, abuse, etc.), that would be a prime significator if that information is available to us. I would think repeat clients would be the best source for this. Since I'm isolated here in the "sticks," I no longer have that luxury.

 

[LindaMechele]

I liken reading about a third party to talking about a third party. Would I talk about someone's relationship, mental status, life situation normally? If no, I won't read about it either.

When put like that, you can see that I think it's not black or white. If I had a friend who was trying to move on from a breakup and they wanted to talk about their ex and their current relationship status as a way to process their feelings, a way to let go, then I'd definitely talk with them about it and may even read about it for them. If my friend was self-flagellating, I wouldn't want to be complicit in that, so I wouldn't do either in that case.

If I didn't know the person asking, I'd try my best to apply the above to them, keeping in mind that we're all adults here and I'm not their mama.

Is talking about someone without their knowledge an invasion of privacy? Unless you're naming names while outing all sorts of private information, I don't think so. However, others feel quite differently, so I doubt I'd go on an open forum and discuss having done it.