Eyes Wide Open: A Meditation on “Confirmation Bias”
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Self-styled “tarot debunkers” are convinced that those who book readings from professional diviners are only looking for substantiation that some outcome they covet will actually occur. In the naysayers’ opinion, these obsessed seekers don’t really care about the truth unless it agrees with their preconceptions, which they hope will result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is known as “confirmation bias,” and unfortunately there may be more validity to the critics’ repudiation than we care to admit.
The biggest offender in this orgy of distortion is usually the “love” reading. Although querents may try to delicately tip-toe around it, what they’re really after is assurance that someone they have their eye on is amenable to being approached. They may say they desire to know only what the person “thinks or feels,” but they damn well want to hear that the individual is favorably disposed to their advances. For them, there is no other worthwhile reason to pursue divination. A less-highly-charged subject is the job application, but the wishful thinking is just as obvious, and it has the added stipulation of not just “if” but “when.”
Any conceivable aspiration can be submitted to the “match game” that is a tarot prediction, with the objective of seeing how closely the cards can make projected reality conform to one’s prejudiced supposition. Readers who cave in to this biased conjecture wind up in a “no win” situation; they can’t in good conscience tell the client what they desperately want to hear if the cards don’t deliver it, but they also can’t disabuse them of their fondest wishes without seeming mean-spirited. They are caught in the “empowerment trap.”
The “self-reading” is especially susceptible to this abuse of objectivity. We are often told that we can’t (or at least shouldn’t) predict our own future because we are too emotionally invested in the results and, through subconscious induction, are likely to skew them in favor of our predilections. It’s like our inner self is “refusing to take ‘No’ for an answer.” Conscientious readers will make a determined effort to separate themselves from the topic of the inquiry by de-emphasizing the personal element in favor of a more universal approach. One way to do this is to “blank our mind” by achieving a meditative state of indifference, but when reading for ourselves about a matter that can affect our mental/emotional well-being, this seems entirely counterproductive. The question should beget the answer.
My own approach when divining for others is to “just read the cards” without applying any subjective assumptions to what I think they’re trying to say. They will tell a story regardless of any “preconditioning” I (or the querent) presume to bring to the narrative, even if unintentionally. I like to think of it as “riding the energy” and giving the cards their head without pulling too hard on the reins, thus creating an impressionistic rather than a drily literal interpretation. Nobody comes to a reading to be lectured, they want to be inspired.
As I’ve said many times before, I apply storytelling “tropes” like metaphors and analogies as a way to bring these stories to life in a non-judgmental way that supports the purpose of advancing the plot. Only after I’ve fashioned a cohesive story-line will I bring it back to the question to “check-and-adjust” the details. When reading for clients, this is done most effectively and efficiently in a face-to-face setting. Quite often, the sitter will “pick up the ball” and tell their own tale with my judicious interjection. For me, this “guiding” role is where the most enjoyment lies in the “performance art” of tarot.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on July 6, 2024.
