• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tarot cards, they are AMAZING!

Might it not be a good idea for the test subjects to answer the questions in advance of the readings from their own point of view and supply those answers to a trusted third party?

That way we can all judge the results for ourselves rather than the subjects adapting their view of the situation to either confirm or deny the readings based on a predisposition to tarot readings.
 
Egg said:
Might it not be a good idea for the test subjects to answer the questions in advance of the readings from their own point of view and supply those answers to a trusted third party?

That way we can all judge the results for ourselves rather than the subjects adapting their view of the situation to either confirm or deny the readings based on a predisposition to tarot readings.
Click to expand...
Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best.
 
Pixel42 said:
Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best.
Click to expand...
Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment?
 
Egg said:
Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment?
Click to expand...

Yep. Choose 10 skeptics off the JREF forum. We don't believe. ;)

Pixel42 said:
Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best.
Click to expand...

Awww... throwing the tarot crowd a bone, are we? You're really too kind.
 
Egg said:
Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment?
Click to expand...


In previous similar experiments subjects had so much trouble picking a reading that described them any better than any other that they asked their significant others to help select one. That might be a good way to eliminate any tendancy to simply pick the most flattering reading, if they are so vague that selection on the basis of facts which are either obviously correct or incorrect proves difficult.

ETA:

Mike Sun5 said:
Awww... throwing the tarot crowd a bone, are we? You're really too kind.
Click to expand...


Huh? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Okay, I have all of the volunteers compiled, and I'm ready to provide their first names to MrErisian whenever he is ready. Oddly enough, I managed to get no volunteers who shared the same first name! :)

Okay, we're just waiting for MrErisian.
 
MikeSun5 said:
Letting the sitters pick makes it too easy on the reader. But this is for fun and not science, so machts nichts.
Click to expand...
I think you have missed the point of the test. Have you read the whole thread?

Giving each subject just their reading and letting them subjectively validate it -which is what normally happens - makes it easy on the reader. Giving the subjects 10 readings, one of which is theirs, and seeing if they can pick it out makes it much harder on the reader. The subjects will subjectively validate all the readings, so if that's all that's going on they will correctly identify their own reading no more often than would be expected by chance. Only if there really is more going on than The Forer Effect will we get a success rate better than chance.

I agree that what we're doing is far from scientifically rigorous, but it will still produce results which are significantly more meaningful than the "evidence" upon which tarot card readers usually base their conviction that their readings are accurate.
 
arthwollipot said:
My understanding was that MrErisian was going to do a reading for each of the ten volunteers, addressing each of the questions proposed:

But it depends on what MrErisian says he is willing to do/capable of doing.
Click to expand...

I thought we were picking a question from the 6. Otherwise I'll be writing out 60 readings!

I thought there were 6 because we were picking one with the roll of a dice or something?

Would rather pick one question and stick to ten readings, which will take a while as it is.

MikeSun5 said:
Yep. Choose 10 skeptics off the JREF forum. We don't believe. ;)
Click to expand...

Mmm - I think a true skeptic always holds open the possibility.

I always thought Robert Anton Wilson's response to the million dollar prize nailed that sort of reverse dogma pretty well. I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can prove the world is as we think it is. ;)
 
MrErisian said:
I thought we were picking a question from the 6. Otherwise I'll be writing out 60 readings!

I thought there were 6 because we were picking one with the roll of a dice or something?

Would rather pick one question and stick to ten readings, which will take a while as it is.
Click to expand...
Sure, we can do that. One question per querent?
 
PS - Soon as we've picked a question PM me the names and I'll get to it. I estimate it'll take about a week or so to write them all. I'm very new to reading etc. Furthermore I'm going to try and make these readings as specific/accurate as I know how.
 
MrErisian said:
PS - Soon as we've picked a question PM me the names and I'll get to it. I estimate it'll take about a week or so to write them all. I'm very new to reading etc. Furthermore I'm going to try and make these readings as specific/accurate as I know how.
Click to expand...
Do you want to do a different question for each, or just ten readings all on the same question?
 
MrErisian said:
Yeah. But surely the question should be a standard question for all of them or it'll be too easy to spot the correct answer.
Click to expand...
Okay, we're cross-posting here.

I'll pick one question randomly from the six, and PM you the question and the ten first names. Cool?
 
Okay. I have chosen the question randomly, by the roll of a 6-sided die. The question is no. 4: "What is the current situation in relation to place of abode?"

I have sent the list of names to MrErisian, who will now perform one tarot reading for each person on the question provided, and send them back to me individually. MrErisian, please remember to PM them to me and not post them direct to the list, as the order in which you do them may give away who each one was for.

I will then randomise them and send all of them to each of the ten participants, who will then attempt to pick the one from the list that most accurately describes their house, apartment, shack or cave on the beach.

My understanding is that more than 1 hit out of the 10 constitutes "better than chance", am I correct?
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay. I have chosen the question randomly, by the roll of a 6-sided die. The question is no. 4: "What is the current situation in relation to place of abode?"

I have sent the list of names to MrErisian, who will now perform one tarot reading for each person on the question provided, and send them back to me individually. MrErisian, please remember to PM them to me and not post them direct to the list, as the order in which you do them may give away who each one was for.

I will then randomise them and send all of them to each of the ten participants, who will then attempt to pick the one from the list that most accurately describes their house, apartment, shack or cave on the beach.

My understanding is that more than 1 hit out of the 10 constitutes "better than chance", am I correct?
Click to expand...


This is very exciting. It isn't often that these informal tests get to this stage on the JREF forums and I commend everyone involved including MrErisian, the volunteers, arthwollipot and everyone who made suggestions in the thread.

1 out of 10 is what can be expected by chance alone. MrErisian agreed to a success of 7 out of 10, but expects better. Although 7 out of 10 is the agreed success rate, anything above 5 out of 10 would raise an eye-brow, for me, personally.

In terms of the question regarding place of abode, I think MrErisian should try to include information about the place of abode itself (e.g. large, open-area house), but also the surrounding area (e.g. middle-class, high-density, city-living). Of course, the reading could even include number of people living in the place of abode. I'm sure there is lots of room for detail that will make the sitters' jobs easier in picking their readings out.

Good luck, MrErisian.
 
Last edited:
Additional sorts of information could be owned/mortgaged/renting/boarding, cleanliness/tidiness (or lack thereof), building condition (new/aging/well-maintained/almost-condemned/historic), existence of garden and condition thereof, number of indoor plants, colours of wall/curtains/flooring/furniture, decoration style, heating/cooling systems installed or used...

I could go on all day. Basically, the more precise the readings are, the more information provided, the better chance the volunteers have of successfully choosing a correct reading, assuming that the cards do give correct information.

If MrE can come up with at least 10 identifying features for each sitter, the different readings could be given a percentage correctness by each volunteer, and the best result chosen fairly easily.

If there's only two or three features for each reading, there would probably be too much overlap to decide easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom