Intuitive vs. book meaning

[Wanderer]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

I'm going a little OT here, but I'm trying to get to the root of why so many reject science and facts. I'm not saying that you take it to the extremes of a flat earther or antivaxxer, but if something is demonstrated to be true, why cling to sketchy theories? The road to the Dark Ages is paved with such thinking.

 

OK, I'll dabble in the OT, in order to bring it back! 😉 As I said, I'm a professional scientist (primarily a researcher). I don't reject science at all, and I treat hypotheses for what they are, and check them against reasoning and observations--because that's how science works. From the outside, 'Science' can look like a monolithic whole, and people (unfortunately) either tend to accept it entirely or reject it as a whole (I'm not going into why - that's a whole other thread!). From the inside, it's nothing like it, though. It's a perpetual work in progress, consisting of all the data, and all the competing explanations, and they're all tested by cross-referencing back to the observations, and doing more experiments (practical or thought). Hypotheses are not sacrosanct - they're presented in order to be tested, and those that survive lots of testing eventually become established... but, of course, only until some new data require a modified version to be developed. Science works by presenting potential explanations of what we observe, and trying to disprove them, but no explanation is ever categorically proven to be true. By this process, though, we get closer and closer to the truth. We don't do it by accepting ideas uncritically, or by over-generalising them.

   

      In this case, intuition is the name we give to the broad type of experience where knowledge appears without an obvious cause, without statement as to the explanation (hence the dictionary definitions). The explanation of it is (potentially) in the realm of scientific exploration. So... the psychological explanation you provided almost certainly works in some instances of the phenomenon we call intuition, or at least it could work without any extra phenomena - and by good old Occam's Razor, that's what we assume. However, that will be demonstrated only for specific sets of circumstances, under specific conditions; it might be shown experimentally, for example, that when we are deprived of particular sensory clues, the intuition doesn't happen. That gives us a hypothesis to generalise into other examples of the phenomenon, and we keep trying to extend it until it breaks and new ideas are needed. 

   What you can't do is extend the hypothesis into a situation in which the prerequisites are absent. That's what you've done here, and why I reject your application of that specific hypothesis. Why? Because in the circumstances I suggested (and in some ways much more widely, but let's give it the rigorous test here), there are no sensory inputs that would allow you to link the possible meanings of the card to the situation you are reading on. Effectively, you're falsifying the psychology test above: all the sensory cues are removed (no sitter opposite you, no half-forgotten knowledge of their life to connect with), and yet you still get the intuition happening when presented with the cards; you still know which of the possible meanings of the card are relevant. Trying to explain this with the psychological hypothesis isn't a valid scientific application of rationality, because you're uncritically applying it to situation that actually breaks the basis for that understanding. It's a contradiction, not an application.

 

    This isn't anti-science in any way; it's how science works. We're living in a world where we accept that the right cards can magically be selected, with no current scientific explanation. All I'm saying is that there is also no complete scientific explanation for the way intuition works in the context of reading. Perhaps the purely psychological explanation can apply when reading in situations with lots of cues (even so, it can't generate those strange details of insight that are not suggested by some available stimulus), but it can't apply in those cases of blind reading that take place without them.

     This is why many scientists tend to just deny that Tarot can possibly work... but that's also unscientific if the observations indicate a real phenomenon. We might not be able to prove that Tarot works to laboratory standards, but we all know it from experience. Perhaps there will be a scientific understanding one day, but I can only see that happening if it can be expanded to encompass some areas that are not currently accepted as within science's remit. This is starting to happen in areas of quantum theory and panpsychism, but again... that's a different thread.

 

Tldr: you can't apply a hypothesis to a situation in which the prerequisites aren't there, and that's what you're trying to do here. It's not anti-science, it's using the scientific approach to indicate that the explanation is inapplicable. My (our) observations and experiences indicate that the psychological hypothesis cannot apply in the case of Tarot.

 

@changa I know we've kind-of taken over your thread, but hope you're finding it as interesting as I am!

[Guest]

15 hours ago, katrinka said:

I just want to clear something up. 
And I am not doing this to snark - we're using written words to communicate here,  so. it's important that everyone understand what those words mean.

Intuition is not psychism, and intuitive insights don't come "from the aether."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/intuition

 

As in the link, intuition is NOT woo. It's a function of your brain. Brains are pretty amazing and mysterious on their own, without woo.

 

Yes. Intuition and psychism are two different things. For me, psychic means pertaining (ic) to the soul (psyche [spirit is the more accurate imho]). It relies on contact with the Otherworld or Extra Spatial Dimensions.
 

Most see the clairs as psychic, but I myself am reticent.  For that reason, I do not utilise the term psychic for myself. Over the last twenty years, these terms have been used so interchangeably they have lost their meanings. 
 

Consequently, I do not see how cards would work unless it is something similar to trance inducement. If so, again, that is not necessarily psychic.

Edited November 29, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

4 hours ago, changa said:

If we're going to open this door we probably should open another thread for this. Which I would be delighted to do. But as the mods already warned me once about not straying too far from the mainstream narrative on Covid, I'm not sure how this would be received, being only my second day on this forum.

 

I personally sometimes reject "science and facts" because of the conflict of interest apparent in a lot of "scientific studies". Millions have been spent throughout the years looking for a "cure for cancer", while expensive treatment methods are giving patients false hope and many times prolong and make their suffering worse. All the while there are many known "alternative" (read; natural) cures that have worked for many patients in eradicating their cancer. Also true for other "incurable" diseases. But you see natural things can not be patented, hence, not profited from. That's why no pharmaceutical company will ever back any "research" into an actual cure, making them loose out on the multi-million dollar/year industry of "treating" cancer. A cancer which was caused in the first place from the processed foods and unhealthy lifestyle our society promotes and passes off as normal. 

 

Have you personally looked into either flat earth or researched vaccines?

 

Changa — I am the first to accept that the large drug companies are capital driven and need greater accountability.  However, cancer far outdates processed foods, and unhealthy lifestyles are not the only cause of cancer.
 

We should also be mindful of making generalised and sweeping statements. There will be many, here, for whom this rhetoric can be triggering and upsetting. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Guest

[gregory]

Thanks timtoldrum. This is a TAROT forum, not a conspiracy theory one.

[Little Fang]

Stay on topic. First warning.

[TheLoracular]

And I will apologize to everyone having the very intense conversation about the need for cards, the role of intuition and the science of intuition.  There's a LOT in there that I would normally love to unpack into different threads and chatter about as separate topics perhaps.  Especially the science of intuition as its own topic?  That is something I love to think/read about.  I might throw up tomorrow as I'm getting a late start on my IRL day already. 

I'm just going to throw something quick into this thread though because I  ~think~ this is what some people are trying to say to each other but something got lost maybe?  Which happens a lot in conversations spoken or typed.  

To be a tarot reading, there need to be tarot cards.

However, you can use your intuition and common sense to answer the same question for someone without using tarot cards or any kind of tool/prop.   For some people, this is just as effective.  But when they do that, they aren't doing a tarot reading. 

I both give good advice (in my subjective opinion) XD without having a tarot deck involved -and- give really good advice to clients while I'm reading tarot for/with them (in my subjective opinion) XD.   

I feel like when I work from cards, I give much more impartial advise and I think "outside the box" and its really more constructive and educational for both the querent and me.  

[Wanderer]

6 minutes ago, TheLoracular said:

To be a tarot reading, there need to be tarot cards.

However, you can use your intuition and common sense to answer the same question for someone without using tarot cards or any kind of tool/prop.   For some people, this is just as effective.  But when they do that, they aren't doing a tarot reading. 

Thanks for this, and yes, that is what's being said by many. What I'm suggesting is that a reading contains elements of both, so that we can't easily separate what comes from the cards, versus what comes from within us (i.e. without subconscious prompting from the cards). Obviously, if one doesn't use cards at all then it's not a tarot reading. But if one does use cards, but includes insights whose origins are largely or purely from our intuition (in the spooky sense... the psychological explanation, as I've explained, I don't see as sufficient), is that not also a reading?

 

It appears that the whole debate arises from a difference between those who believe all our intuitive insights are triggered by the cards alone, in standard psychological processes, and my stance that some degree of independent intuition ('psychism' in the very loose sense - I'm not saying anything about what that means specifically, Tim! ) is necessary to explain what we do. It often takes a discussion like this to draw out these differences of opinion that normally remain hidden... which is good, for all of us.

 

[katrinka]

3 hours ago, Wanderer said:

What you can't do is extend the hypothesis into a situation in which the prerequisites are absent. That's what you've done here, and why I reject your application of that specific hypothesis. Why? Because in the circumstances I suggested (and in some ways much more widely, but let's give it the rigorous test here), there are no sensory inputs that would allow you to link the possible meanings of the card to the situation you are reading on.

You're overlooking sight. That's a pretty glaring omission.

The potential interpretations are narrowed considerably by the neighboring cards. From there it's simply a matter of putting it in context. 

 

2 hours ago, gregory said:

Thanks timtoldrum. This is a TAROT forum, not a conspiracy theory one.

 

Yes. Those who want to promote such fringe theories will find a more welcoming platform at facebook.

 

3 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

Most see the clairs as psychic, but I myself am reticent.  For that reason, I do not utilise the term psychic for myself.

 

Yes. Keen used to promote us as "psychics" - it was awful. People in general have a very poor understanding of card reading and tend to conflate it with other things. The other night at work someone mentioned that I read cards, and another person remarked "Oh, you're into Wicca?" 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, TheLoracular said:

 To be a tarot reading, there need to be tarot cards.

However, you can use your intuition and common sense to answer the same question for someone without using tarot cards or any kind of tool/prop.   For some people, this is just as effective.  But when they do that, they aren't doing a tarot reading. 

I both give good advice (in my subjective opinion) XD without having a tarot deck involved -and- give really good advice to clients while I'm reading tarot for/with them (in my subjective opinion) XD.   

I feel like when I work from cards, I give much more impartial advise and I think "outside the box" and its really more constructive and educational for both the querent and me.  

Yes; cartomancy requires cards, be they tarot cards or otherwise. But they must also be the prime focus — otherwise it ceases to be cartomancy. If they are but props, they are wallpaper. 
 

As for advice, for me, the reader doesn’t offer advice or even opinions. The moment we do so, we forsake our neutrality.
 

Remember the fortune teller/diviner sits opposite our clients - the cards being inverse to the client’s sight.  We do not sit or walk alongside them.

[gregory]

1 hour ago, TheLoracular said:

And I will apologize to everyone having the very intense conversation about the need for cards, the role of intuition and the science of intuition.  There's a LOT in there that I would normally love to unpack into different threads and chatter about as separate topics perhaps.  Especially the science of intuition as its own topic?  That is something I love to think/read about.  I might throw up tomorrow as I'm getting a late start on my IRL day already. 

I'm just going to throw something quick into this thread though because I  ~think~ this is what some people are trying to say to each other but something got lost maybe?  Which happens a lot in conversations spoken or typed.  

To be a tarot reading, there need to be tarot cards.
 

 

*applause* Exactly this. We can do all sorts of other things and they are perfectly valid - but they Aren't Tarot Reading.

 

33 minutes ago, katrinka said:

You're overlooking sight. That's a pretty glaring omission.

The potential interpretations are narrowed considerably by the neighboring cards. From there it's simply a matter of putting it in context. 

This is very true - things like which direction the figures are looking, and the like. You cannot get that without looking !

 

Quote

Yes. Keen used to promote us as "psychics" - it was awful. People in general have a very poor understanding of card reading and tend to conflate it with other things. The other night at work someone mentioned that I read cards, and another person remarked "Oh, you're into Wicca?" 

 

I've got that I was into Satan Worship.... My secretary used to pray to save me....

 

33 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Yes; cartomancy requires cards, be they tarot cards or otherwise. But they must also be the prime focus — otherwise it ceases to be cartomancy. If they are but props, they are wallpaper. 
 

As for advice, for me, the reader doesn’t offer advice or even opinions. The moment we do so, we forsake our neutrality.
 

Remember the fortune teller/diviner sits opposite our clients - the cards being inverse to the client’s sight.  We do not sit or walk alongside them.

 

Isn't it kind of advice when we say we see - say - two paths and one will lead perhaps to losing your job; the other will not... They get to decide, of course - and we the readers stay dispassionate - but isn't offering two paths advice ? (confesses; I DID tell someone please to see an ophthalmologist.....)

Edited November 29, 2020 by gregory

[Guest]

1 minute ago, katrinka said:

Yes. Keen used to promote us as "psychics" - it was awful. People in general have a very poor understanding of card reading and tend to conflate it with other things. The other night at work someone mentioned that I read cards, and another person remarked "Oh, you're into Wicca?" 

Lol.

 

Sadly, psychic sells. You only need to look at the development courses.
 

I removed clairvoyant from my business cards around 2013. I identify with the classical interpretation. In the UK, however, quite a few people equate it with mediumship and seeing “spirit.” 
 

Clients would book expecting to speak to a loved one and it was not nice to disappoint. So I now just have: palmist and cartomante. I don’t even use astrologer anymore. 

[katrinka]

2 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Yes; cartomancy requires cards, be they tarot cards or otherwise. But they must also be the prime focus — otherwise it ceases to be cartomancy. If they are but props, they are wallpaper. 

 

As for advice, for me, the reader doesn’t offer advice or even opinions. The moment we do so, we forsake our neutrality.
 

Remember the fortune teller/diviner sits opposite our clients - the cards being inverse to the client’s sight.  We do not sit or walk alongside them.

 

All of this. 
It's about the cards.
Personally, if I was a client asking how a situation would play out and the "reading" turned into lecturing and unsolicited advice, I'd try to get my money back.

 

4 minutes ago, gregory said:

Isn't it kind of advice when we say we see - say - two paths and one will lead perhaps to losing your job; the other will not... They get to decide, of course - and we the readers stay dispassionate - but isn't offering two paths advice ? (confesses; I DID tell someone please to see an ophthalmologist.....)

 

If the cards indicate eye problems, I think that's reasonable.
I take "advice" here to mean those "readers" who impose their own opinions on things. For instance, the sitter is seeing a married man and the reader launches into a spiel about how it's immoral and he won't leave his wife for her (some men do, and the cards may well indicate that), etc. It's not our function to do that. Just translate what's on the table.

 

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, gregory said:

Isn't it kind of advice when we say we see - say - two paths and one will lead perhaps to losing your job; the other will not... They get to decide, of course - and we the readers stay dispassionate - but isn't offering two paths advice ? (confesses; I DID tell someone please to see an ophthalmologist.....)

Personally, I would say that was an interpretation — yes, there is advice there, but it arises from the cards.  
 

The advice that @TheLoracular  refers to (if I read correctly) was independent and based on TheLoracular’s own view. That for me crosses the line of neutrality.  It’s like when the client says, “What would you?” I never answer that. 

[Wanderer]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

You're overlooking sight. That's a pretty glaring omission.

The potential interpretations are narrowed considerably by the neighboring cards. From there it's simply a matter of putting it in context. 

That's why I carefully specified a single-card reading. It would indeed have been a glaring omission if I hadn't stated that.

 

Anyhow, I hope I've finally got my point across - even if I seem to be all on my lonesome here in the conclusion that there's something scientifically inexplicable going on with a reader's intuition (now that's something I never expected to write! 😁) Having gone through all the debate, though, I'm more convinced than ever that psychological cue-driven intuition doesn't come close to explaining it, whether we like it or not. I'd love to be able to tell people that it's a scientifically understood process, but in all honesty, I can't. Anyhow, I'll stop trying to persuade you all! Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[katrinka]

11 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

That's why I carefully specified a single-card reading. It would indeed have been a glaring omission if I hadn't stated that.

 

Where?

I don't see any mention of that in the post I was replying to. In fact, the plural "cards" is used repeatedly.
 

6 hours ago, Wanderer said:

OK, I'll dabble in the OT, in order to bring it back! 😉 As I said, I'm a professional scientist (primarily a researcher). I don't reject science at all, and I treat hypotheses for what they are, and check them against reasoning and observations--because that's how science works. From the outside, 'Science' can look like a monolithic whole, and people (unfortunately) either tend to accept it entirely or reject it as a whole (I'm not going into why - that's a whole other thread!). From the inside, it's nothing like it, though. It's a perpetual work in progress, consisting of all the data, and all the competing explanations, and they're all tested by cross-referencing back to the observations, and doing more experiments (practical or thought). Hypotheses are not sacrosanct - they're presented in order to be tested, and those that survive lots of testing eventually become established... but, of course, only until some new data require a modified version to be developed. Science works by presenting potential explanations of what we observe, and trying to disprove them, but no explanation is ever categorically proven to be true. By this process, though, we get closer and closer to the truth. We don't do it by accepting ideas uncritically, or by over-generalising them.

   

      In this case, intuition is the name we give to the broad type of experience where knowledge appears without an obvious cause, without statement as to the explanation (hence the dictionary definitions). The explanation of it is (potentially) in the realm of scientific exploration. So... the psychological explanation you provided almost certainly works in some instances of the phenomenon we call intuition, or at least it could work without any extra phenomena - and by good old Occam's Razor, that's what we assume. However, that will be demonstrated only for specific sets of circumstances, under specific conditions; it might be shown experimentally, for example, that when we are deprived of particular sensory clues, the intuition doesn't happen. That gives us a hypothesis to generalise into other examples of the phenomenon, and we keep trying to extend it until it breaks and new ideas are needed. 

   What you can't do is extend the hypothesis into a situation in which the prerequisites are absent. That's what you've done here, and why I reject your application of that specific hypothesis. Why? Because in the circumstances I suggested (and in some ways much more widely, but let's give it the rigorous test here), there are no sensory inputs that would allow you to link the possible meanings of the card to the situation you are reading on. Effectively, you're falsifying the psychology test above: all the sensory cues are removed (no sitter opposite you, no half-forgotten knowledge of their life to connect with), and yet you still get the intuition happening when presented with the cards; you still know which of the possible meanings of the card are relevant. Trying to explain this with the psychological hypothesis isn't a valid scientific application of rationality, because you're uncritically applying it to situation that actually breaks the basis for that understanding. It's a contradiction, not an application.

 

    This isn't anti-science in any way; it's how science works. We're living in a world where we accept that the right cards can magically be selected, with no current scientific explanation. All I'm saying is that there is also no complete scientific explanation for the way intuition works in the context of reading. Perhaps the purely psychological explanation can apply when reading in situations with lots of cues (even so, it can't generate those strange details of insight that are not suggested by some available stimulus), but it can't apply in those cases of blind reading that take place without them.

     This is why many scientists tend to just deny that Tarot can possibly work... but that's also unscientific if the observations indicate a real phenomenon. We might not be able to prove that Tarot works to laboratory standards, but we all know it from experience. Perhaps there will be a scientific understanding one day, but I can only see that happening if it can be expanded to encompass some areas that are not currently accepted as within science's remit. This is starting to happen in areas of quantum theory and panpsychism, but again... that's a different thread.

 

Tldr: you can't apply a hypothesis to a situation in which the prerequisites aren't there, and that's what you're trying to do here. It's not anti-science, it's using the scientific approach to indicate that the explanation is inapplicable. My (our) observations and experiences indicate that the psychological hypothesis cannot apply in the case of Tarot.

 

@changa I know we've kind-of taken over your thread, but hope you're finding it as interesting as I am!

And for the record, I don't do single card readings, nor do I recommend them. 
 

 

[gregory]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

I take "advice" here to mean those "readers" who impose their own opinions on things. For instance, the sitter is seeing a married man and the reader launches into a spiel about how it's immoral and he won't leave his wife for her (some men do, and the cards may well indicate that), etc. It's not our function to do that. Just translate what's on the table.

 

 

Ah yes., Couldn't agree more

 

1 hour ago, timtoldrum said:

Personally, I would say that was an interpretation — yes, there is advice there, but it arises from the cards.  
 

The advice that @TheLoracular  refers to (if I read correctly) was independent and based on TheLoracular’s own view. That for me crosses the line of neutrality.  It’s like when the client says, “What would you?” I never answer that. 

 

Me neither.

 

10 minutes ago, katrinka said:

And for the record, I don't do single card readings, nor do I recommend them. 

 

I do.  

[katrinka]

2 hours ago, gregory said:

I do.  

 

Maybe your secretary was onto something.

[Raggydoll]

 

11 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

Remember the fortune teller/diviner sits opposite our clients - the cards being inverse to the client’s sight.  We do not sit or walk alongside them.

I typically don't sit opposite anyone when I read for them! I prefer to lay the cards out so that we can both see them. And when I do readings I often feel like I am walking alongside them in their experience; its a bit like taking the role as an experienced guide to the territory of the reading. I am not walking alongside them in their daily life, but in the context of the reading, then yes ! I guess this comes down to reading style. But unless the client is blind or doesn't want to see the cards, they typically sit where they can see them. 

 

I think I have spoken enough times about my reading style but I will just quickly state that I combine book knowledge, experience and intuitive input. It is all mixed together in the reading. Some readings are more psychic to their nature, but I have not had anything come up that was contradicted by the cards (this is an important thing to differentiate, I think! Expanding on meanings is not the same thing as contradicting them!). I believe our intuition can both narrow down and expand the reading; it helps us to see what aspects are relevant and it helps us see more layers of symbolism or meanings. 

[gregory]

9 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

Maybe your secretary was onto something.

 

Maybe. She died.

 

ETA and actually - largely because she was such an unremitting and persistent hypochondriac - doctor's appointments for random symptoms at least 2x a week the whole time she worked with me over several years - that when something was actually wrong, her doctor missed it (and apologised, and she actually took the point in very good humour !) She should have let me read for her

Edited November 30, 2020 by gregory

[katrinka]

2 hours ago, gregory said:

 

Maybe. She died.

 

 

2 hours ago, gregory said:

ETA and actually - largely because she was such an unremitting and persistent hypochondriac - doctor's appointments for random symptoms at least 2x a week the whole time she worked with me over several years - that when something was actually wrong, her doctor missed it (and apologised, and she actually took the point in very good humour !) She should have let me read for her

 

Indeed. 😁
It's odd that she wasn't into faith healing - most of the ones who think there's a devil under every rock are.

[gregory]

OH no. God proposes, God disposes. Everything left to him. The cards would have been totally inappropriate for her - I would actually have refused if she'd asked.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

 

I typically don't sit opposite anyone when I read for them! I prefer to lay the cards out so that we can both see them. And when I do readings I often feel like I am walking alongside them in their experience; its a bit like taking the role as an experienced guide to the territory of the reading. I am not walking alongside them in their daily life, but in the context of the reading, then yes ! I guess this comes down to reading style. But unless the client is blind or doesn't want to see the cards, they typically sit where they can see them. 

 

I think I have spoken enough times about my reading style but I will just quickly state that I combine book knowledge, experience and intuitive input. It is all mixed together in the reading. Some readings are more psychic to their nature, but I have not had anything come up that was contradicted by the cards (this is an important thing to differentiate, I think! Expanding on meanings is not the same thing as contradicting them!). I believe our intuition can both narrow down and expand the reading; it helps us to see what aspects are relevant and it helps us see more layers of symbolism or meanings. 

Yes; it is a matter of style or preference.
 

I was, though, referring more to the traditional symbolism of the reader and querent whereby the cards are inverse to the client. Depending on location, not all my clients sit opposite me. But the symbolism remains: the cards are a reflection of the client which the reader interprets. The seeker is passive and has no part in the interpretation. 

[Raggydoll]

I was going to try and link a youtube video featuring Mary K Greer where she demonstrates her approach that involves both intuition and book knowledge. She starts by letting the client describe the card and whatever intuitive hits they have. Her style is very interactive. It is reminiscent of Katrina Wynnes transformative tarot counseling. It isn't how I read, but it is obviously a really great method and those two women are brilliant readers. Sadly the video seem to be gone 😔 

[TheLoracular]

20 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

Yes; cartomancy requires cards, be they tarot cards or otherwise. But they must also be the prime focus — otherwise it ceases to be cartomancy. If they are but props, they are wallpaper. 
 

As for advice, for me, the reader doesn’t offer advice or even opinions. The moment we do so, we forsake our neutrality.
 

Remember the fortune teller/diviner sits opposite our clients - the cards being inverse to the client’s sight.  We do not sit or walk alongside them.

I think you have a completely valid paradigm. 

Keep in mind,  I do not call myself a fortune teller/diviner. 

I am, however, a retired life coach (specializing in helping people quit smoking and recovery from alcoholism/drug addiction and using tarot as one of my tools for that).  So my approach comes from a very different place than yours. 

What I don't do as a tarot reader (either in work mode or hobby mode) is make judgements about the people I read for.  I am impartial to their race, gender, age, belief system, appearance, life choices and I keep my neutrality by not placing ~value judgements~ on that they've done to themselves or others to get to the place they've come to seek my help.  I offer help to the best of my ability and then let them go again without a ~value judgment~ on what they do next, on whether they return or they don't.  That's my flavor of neutrality.  
 

[IntuitiveAffinity]

Personally, I utilize my intuition first. I look at overall interpretations in my head, then I look to the book for guidance. Another key element is paying attention to the feelings you get from the cards you choose. Those initial gut feelings help me with the overall "vibe" of the reading. Hope this helps!