Let's define "accuracy"

[Guest Night Shade]

https://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=118573

This one is from our own Grizabella[/member] !

 

Let's define "accuracy"

 

 

I thought it would be interesting if we shared what we consider to be "accurate" when we're doing readings. It occurred to me that different people may have different ideas of what they consider accuracy to be in readings. There's no right or wrong answer here. I just thought it would be interesting to compare ideas.

[Guest Night Shade]

I think a reading is accurate if it does in fact reflect what the sitter is thinking and feeling.  If it resonates with the sitter, then you know that you're at least on the right track.

[TheLittleJackal]

I feel like a reading is accurate if it resonates at some point (sometimes it takes us time to recognise what tarot is getting at, or for the situation tarot is referencing to come to pass), or if it reflects reality even if our stubborn minds don't want to accept it.

 

Of course, when someone (ourselves included) is saying "Yeah that doesn't make any sense to me", you have no way of knowing if it will make sense in the future, or if it does make sense and they just refuse to see it, or if it really is "inaccurate" and you've maybe misinterpreted the card or something.

 

For the sake of my own sanity, I tend to assume that my readings, particularly those done for others, are generally speaking about as accurate as it's possible for them to be in a given time and place. And if people don't connect with them, immediately or at all, well, that's a bummer, but there's only so much I can do as a reader really.

 

I think people getting readings could, instead of judging up front whether a reading is "accurate" and having standards for what they consider accuracy to be in a reading, just be like, "sounds fake but ok" and write it down in a journal to come back to again and again as time goes on. There's more potential for learning there.

[DownUnderNZer]

I think a reading is accurate if you can nail the Past and Present or at least provide enough information that a Querent can relate to without them really having to say too much.

 

Some don't want to delve in to the Past as they want to know about Now and the Future.

 

However, by touching on the past and present in a relatable way gives the Querent some assurance that you are making a real connection to her/him as a reader, and it can establish a rapport. Also, if s/he knows that you have got it mostly right about her/his past then what might be brought up for the future holds more weight.

 

But the real proof in the pudding is when you get feedback from those Querents - even if years later. About what might have been brought up to them about the future that may or may not have come to pass.

 

 

DND X/

[Thoughtful]

Feedback can be classed as accurate when your sitter sits there nodding and smiling, or being tearful when you hit on their emotional problems.

Nothing like a sitter going away satisfied with their reading.

[GreatDane]

Totally agree with that last paragraph, DND.

 

Sometimes a reading may not make sense to a querent at first, but then I will get feedback a month later telling me how it added up. 

 

I also agree that a querent shouldn't have to say too much, in fact, I don't WANT a querent to tell me much. 

[Wanderer]

Too many ways to answer this..!  ;D

 

If you're reading for someone else, then the past and present is easy (providing they're not sitting there like a stone wall!). Future... well, sometimes that's something the querent doesn't want to hear, and will even deny is possible, so it can be very hard to be have confidence in it. But... I do think that that best readings have a feeling of inevitability to them. Sometimes you can feel when the cards are unambiguous, and flow from the present situation into a clear future pathway, and that to me qualifies as accurate, even before you have confirmation that the events play out.

  But then, with future cards, we've discussed a lot on here about whether the future is fixed. When we say something is accurate, does that mean that it has to play out? Or that it is a plausible pathway in front of you? Unless we ascribe to predestination, we have to allow the latter to be an accurate reading. Overall, then, I recognise accuracy when the cards flow together, and the intuition flows with it, and you can sense the potentials stringing together. We just know when the cards are working, regardless of confirmation.

 

What I really like to see, though, is when they pick up on something that we (or the querent) hadn't considered but do recognise when it's pointed out. That's real vindication, in my book.