AUTHOR’S NOTE: The reliability of highly speculative forms of divination like cartomancy is an open question that is normally approached from an anecdotal angle. Did the querent experience the outcome exactly as described in the forecast? A more empirical viewpoint would seek to quantify the results based on more than just subjective perception, perhaps along the lines of “how much or how many of the projected bounty did the seeker receive?”

I consider myself an enlightened skeptic in this regard but I recognize that there is no cumulative database of published results on which to pin either premise. While I acknowledge the widespread occurrence of accurate predictions, I refuse to place odds on my degree of confidence in that opinion even though I have five decades of tarot reading behind me to support my view of its integrity. This questioning attitude is fertile ground in which to plant the more abstract concepts proposed in Dean Radin’s book Real Magic.

This essay was prompted by a discussion in an r/tarot sub-reddit thread about the relative lack of repeat clients in professional practice. Because so few of us perform successive readings for paying customers with any regularity, we have no way of knowing how our previous predictions played out under real-life conditions. This leaves us with what I call the “feel-good phenomenon,” a euphemism for empowerment. If sitters leave a session with a hopeful outlook on the envisioned denouement, we can have some assurance that they will act on what we told them to make it “come true.” We may then feel secure in our judgment, although with no objective basis for drawing that conclusion.

Radin’s experiments in the repeatability of intentional attempts to change the progress of events via focused mental concentration on the input bear a strong resemblance to the universal understanding that the outcome of prognostication can be influenced by conscious reinforcement on the querent’s part that will work to either promote the favorable consequences described in the augury or suppress those that are less auspicious. I rarely hear anything from my clients about the post-reading validity of my predictions, so the only measure of success I have is whether they return for another go at it, an even less frequent occurrence.

Eventually, a conscientious diviner must come to grips with this lack of feedback. One way I do this is to refrain from putting too fine a point on the precision of my statements, thus allowing some latitude for diverse responses. I decided to just read the cards as I see them and let the querent figure out what to do with my observations, which are never offered in a vacuum but always as part of an interactive exchange even if I’m reading remotely. I believe that the tarot should be talking directly to the querent’s subconscious and all I have to do is translate one side of that dialogue, so I set up the reading to make sure the internal conversation happens as intended. I don’t let them off the hook on providing their own perspective after I weigh in on the cards, and most people aren’t shy when it comes to talking about themselves anyway.

It would be ideal to have constructive criticism on every reading we perform, if only as a learning opportunity. But that expectation is unrealistic without a formal feedback loop like those that online sellers try to impose on us, and even then there is no guarantee of client cooperation. Lacking factual evidence, divination at its best is unlikely to ever be more than a pseudo-science no matter how much we pat ourselves on the back. Just don’t gush over what your spirit guide told you and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.