6 thoughts on “Prediction, Projection or Presumption: Crossing the Line into “Hornswoggling””

  1. Your line between focused forecasting and unfocused fishing is real. One thing I would add: ‘forewarned is forearmed’ makes a forecast unfalsifiable. Event lands, you were right. Event does not, the sitter averted it. Both outcomes confirm the reading. Forer, 1949: students rated a stock personality sketch 4.26 out of 5 for accuracy, believing it had been written for them alone. That is not you lying, it is how a sitter reads a mirror. It is also why I stopped promising forecasts. What I put on the table: here is the spread, here is what it turns your attention toward, here is the next move. The structure is the honest part. I will take your humble soil over the visionary realm every time. – Ezra

    Like

    • I’m essentially on the same page. I’m not looking for unfalsifiable results, just potential outcomes. I intend to “hand them the ammunition and point them at the target.” Whether they choose to attempt hitting the bullseye or walk away is up to them. I stopped being a cheerleader a long time ago.

      Like

      • Ammunition is the right image, but I’d strike one clause: ‘or walk away.’ If walking away counts as a hit, nothing can count as a miss, and you’re back to unfalsifiable without the pom-poms. The test I hold myself to is narrower: a reading has to be able to come back and tell me I was wrong. If nothing could, it wasn’t a reading, it was a mirror with better lighting.

        Your last line is the real one, though. The sitter isn’t buying information. They’re buying permission. Cheerleading is just permission with a deck in its hand. The reader who won’t sell it is the one they remember. – Ezra

        Liked by 1 person

      • But then I’m not strictly looking for hits that confirm the verdict since I’m not trying to prove anything to myself and tarot reading is a “best guess” affair anyway. I’m imparting information (hopefully wisdom) that I expect them to take away and do with as they please. They will have a chance to ask questions when they’re sitting across the table from me (I’m not a fan of remote reading) and I will do my best to enlighten them about what I think it all means. But I don’t “coach” and I don’t seek to “empower.” I “just read the cards.” I tell them it’s their reading, not mine, I’m just the translator.

        “Permission” is a good way to put it, but it’s permission they could give themselves if they only had the insight to realize it. I don’t mind being the one to give them the “hall pass,” but I won’t let myself become a crutch.

        Like

      • In person is the part that earns it: across a table they get to ask, and a translator who can’t be questioned is a monologue with props. Remote, I have to build the check into the words, because the sitter gets one pass. Disclaiming coach and empower while keeping the hall pass still frames someone’s week. That isn’t clean, and I don’t think you want it clean.

        Like

      • I do like the riddles you build into your words. In remote readings I always offer one post-reading email Q&A at no extra charge to tie up any loose ends, and there is also a pre-reading email dialogue to set the stage. (I’m convinced I don’t charge enough for the TLC and the written output.) Sometimes I will even have them pull their own cards and give me the list to interpret. Engagement is always more potent than arms-length.

        Like

Leave a Reply