Well, if there is a market of nutcases, people will peddle to that market. I mean... people pay for reading the stars, tarot cards, or for literal chlorine bleach [1].
> I mean... people pay for reading the stars, tarot cards
I used to consider these to be pretty worthless things too. After a while I started to realise that a lot of these things provide a lot of the same random platitudes that therapists typically provide too.
Given that therapists are a bit of a dice roll as far as the quality of advice you get, why not just instead make the advice given itself a dice roll. At that point, there’s a non negligible probability that the advice given by a half decent palm / star / tarot reader might actually be relevant.
Sure, it’s all just chance and luck, but when the advice ends up being relevant (or becomes self fulfilling in its relevance) and actually helps the receiver, why not?
(These learnings are brought to you by my ex who very patiently explained to me one of the ways I was an asshole when we were together. I’m now a bit more open minded and keep my eye rolls to myself behind my sunglasses)
> At that point, there’s a non negligible probability that the advice given by a half decent palm / star / tarot reader might actually be relevant.
In most cases, the advice those people give probably isn't random at all. It's likely tailored to the client, based on "cold reading" techniques, the practitioners general experience with life and people, maybe the practitioner secretly scouring social media for information about the client, etc.
Exactly. Well.. mostly. I would say you're getting advice, not "therapy" per se, and that most people that others might seek advice from are not licensed therapists. Parents, mentors, priests, elders, etc.. all people that somebody might seek advice from who aren't licensed therapists, and generally nobody makes a big deal about it.
If you're going to the fortune teller or priest for advice, that's what you're getting and the quality of the product might even be good in some cases. If you're going to the fortune teller or priest to receive magical services, then obviously you're getting scammed.
> Sure, it’s all just chance and luck, but when the advice ends up being relevant (or becomes self fulfilling in its relevance) and actually helps the receiver, why not?
It's like homeopathy: still a mixture between fraud, pseudoscience and sometimes outright dangerous advice, the ratio depending on the provider. And people can and do lose entire life savings to that shit. Just because someone's cold "went away" after downing a ton of sugar pills, it doesn't mean the homeopathy caused that - it was the person's own body all along.
The worst thing about all pseudoscience stuff is that accepting it as a society means that non-scientific opinions are accepted as an equal in democratic discourse - and that is the foundation on which quackery, vaccine denialism, MMS and a whole lot of conspiracy myths grow.
Besides: there's a reason why therapists (at least in Europe) generally have to be licensed similar to doctors... bad advice can literally kill people.
We, as a society, should push for equitable and accessible actual mental health care for everyone, provided by trained and continuously educated professionals - not for quackery.
Research has been done and we know why some people see good results from alternative practitioners.
It is because alternative practitioners with bad bedside manners don't stay in business very long.
If you have a minor problem, sitting down with someone who you trust and talking about it for half an hour (much longer than the 5 or maybe 10 minutes you'll get with a traditional doctor), who then gives you some sugar pills and some other good advice (get up and stretch very half an hour), is almost always going to result in an improvement of symptoms.
A lot of problems, including pain, measurably improve when a patient feels they have been listened to, and that advice they are given is tailored to them.
Those longer, and often more frequent, appointments, also means the practitioner gets to know the patient better, which means underlying lifestyle problems can be identified. If the alternative doctor finds out someone is eating a lot of canned food, recommending they switch to "fresh natural vegetables" is a damned good way to lower someone's sodium and potassium intake.
The actual treatments are woo bullshit, but the care setting makes a huge difference.
We could have actual doctors giving that device and detecting symptoms early, but no, we have far too few doctors everywhere, and in the US y'all have your insurance bullshittery on top of that.
The solution to the severe understaffing is not enabling quackers that end up recommending their patients MMS or against chemoterapy like they did with Steve Jobs.
> The solution to the severe understaffing is not enabling quackers that end up recommending their patients MMS or against chemoterapy like they did with Steve Jobs.
I agree it isn't the solution.
> We could have actual doctors giving that device and detecting symptoms early,
One potential lesson is that we don't need full on doctors giving advice. We need people trained to forward to a real doctor if something really wrong is going on, but for a crap ton of problems, someone with basic medical (or just lifestyle/health) training is enough.
Heck there was one study that showed that elderly folks talking to each other about their arthritis pain while getting an evening drink at their local watering hole served to reduce pain symptoms.
Chatting with local bartenders and barbers can be nearly as good as professional therapy for some issues.
Having someone trusted just listen and parrot back common sense advice works really damn well.
Trusting the source of the advice, and believing it will work, has a huge impact on treatment.
The use of tarot cards as therapeutic projectives is actually backed by science though, [1] and more and more practitioners are making use of them in clinical settings [2].
You're jumping to call it quackery without having an open mind. That's not science, that's prejudice.
Is it ok for doctors to give sugar pills for ailments too? They're shown to be effective for a variety of ailments.
Tarot reading goes hand in hand with reading people's fortune. I don't see how you can separate the 2 and therefore have an ethically acceptable treatment, and that's assuming the placebo isn't entirely based on the fortune reading expectation.
Tarot cards can't just be used as a projective because of their history. They are associated with fortune telling.
Denying that is like walking around with a swastika armband telling anyone who calls you a nazi that it's got nothing to do with the Nazis. Even if you're a Buddhist you still have to accept there an association there.
That is the problem with tarot cards. Some people are going to think you are reading their fortune, no matter how much you preface it.
But if I buy a lottery ticket, there's theoretically a chance of winning, even though I never actually will. It would still be fraud if someone sold lottery tickets for a lottery that never was.
Tarot readers are selling a fake good. You can't really escape the ethical implications of that.
As long as the fortune is vague enough to apply to more than 40-50 people, then the chance of a fabricated fortune-telling for you coming true simply by pure random coincidence seems to be greater than the chance of winning the lottery.
Tarot cards are a genuinely helpful method of probing one's psyche and I've used them to benefit in my daily life.
I know many people who use them but none believe they have a magical power. They're projectives, like a Rorsach test.
The card will give you something abstract and you fill in the blanks. What your mind fills in can be quite elucidating. Your feeling as well, in terms of gladness or disappointment at what card you pull, can also give you insight into what issues you'd rather think about.
The demonization of tarot in my mind mostly stems from internalised misogyny and a desire on the societal level to paint anything which appeals mostly to women as "kooky," "overly emotional,". "illogical" and "unscientific" (projectives are well studied and used in clinical settings).
>The demonization of tarot in my mind mostly stems from internalised misogyny and a desire on the societal level to paint anything which appeals mostly to women
Yes, absolutely. The patriarchy likes to dunk on magic future telling cards.
Yes, it does, thanks for proving my point. You just ignored everything I said about their use as projective and painted them again as magical and kooky without any counter argument.
But I don't think power structures have most of the blame for the fact that every single advocate of tarot reading I've seen until today said the cards were magical.
Carl Jung addressed the root issue -- pyschological taboos -- in his introduction to the Wilhelm translation of I Ching.
" The I Ching insists upon self-knowledge throughout. The method by which this is to be achieved is open to every kind of misuse, and is therefore not for the frivolous-minded and immature; nor is it for intellectualists and rationalists. It is appropriate only for thoughtful and reflective people who like to think about what they do and what happens to them -- a predilection not to be confused with the morbid brooding of the hypochondriac. As I have indicated above, I have no answer to the multitude of problems that arise when we seek to harmonize the oracle of the I Ching with our accepted scientific canons. But needless to say, nothing "occult" is to be inferred. My position in these matters is pragmatic, and the great disciplines that have taught me the practical usefulness of this viewpoint are psychotherapy and medical psychology. Probably in no other field do we have to reckon with so many unknown quantities, and nowhere else do we become more accustomed to adopting methods that work even though for a long time we may not know why they work. Unexpected cures may arise from questionable therapies and unexpected failures from allegedly reliable methods. In the exploration of the unconscious we come upon very strange things, from which a rationalist turns away with horror, claiming afterward that he did not see anything. The irrational fullness of life has taught me never to discard anything, even when it goes against all our theories (so short-lived at best) or otherwise admits of no immediate explanation. It is of course disquieting, and one is not certain whether the compass is pointing true or not; but security, certitude, and peace do not lead to discoveries. It is the same with this Chinese mode of divination. Clearly the method aims at self-knowledge, though at all times it has also been put to superstitious use."
By his "pragmatism", I understand something along the philosophical pragmatism of Wittgenstein and his "usage is meaning" line of thought. Jung is saying it is not clear how or why this stuff works, but subjectively a "thoughtful" and "reflective" person seems to discern meaning and gain (personal) insights through the process. In other words, a psychological phenomena.
He also touches on the point of your well aimed remark in noting "misuse". I personally think Jung is understating the dangers involved. (For relative reference, think of the not-so-hot topic of "dangers of meditation" to understand the underlying common pschological issue of probing your culturally protected taboo zones that keep you "normal"/"stable").
The fact of the matter is that occult "divination" tools are dangerous, more dangerous than even "scripture". They have been consistently proven to be culturally corrosive as they undermine rational thought and provide shelter for charlatans, undermine decision faculties of the diviner, and undermine the necessary coherence between our inner life and our outer reality. And the symbolism involved require deep study to avoid misunderstandings. People also seriously discount the inevitable impact of 'divination' on the mind of the inquirer, the careless and ignorant dabbler in occult tools. So promoting them as if they are harmless little nothings is very irresponsible. One has to be very thoughtful and reflective (to say nothing of the erudition required) to not misuse such tools. Very few people meet the required standard. I personally think it has been an error to promote esoterica to the masses. Its like giving guns and bullets to children.
> They have been consistently proven to be culturally corrosive as they undermine rational thought
Sources? Should be easy it's so consistent.
From what I understand of history this kind of fear mongering is much more harmful. It wasn't long ago that women were being burnt alive for using traditional medicines in Europe and the US.
Out of curiosity, would you say professional wrestling is culturally corrosive? I have to suspend my rational thought every time I enjoy watching that stuff.
> So promoting them as if they are harmless little nothings is very irresponsible
Has anyone done that here? They've only been defended for their therapeutic use as projectives. No one has said they're "nothings."
A responsible 'defense' would have the required surgeon general's warning on the tin. But your quick response here indicates you did not really reflect on what was said.
"defended for their therapeutic use"
Therapeutic means are to address 'ailments'. The ailments in this case are existential and psychological. Projectives are dangerous and require guided initiation. It is highly irresponsible to push these things.
Tarot Cards as self-administered "therapeutic" remedy on HN. We've been banging on the doors on paganism in the West for a few decades now. And here we are.
> A responsible 'defense' would have the required surgeon general's warning on the tin.
I can buy rorsach cards now on Amazon. There's no health warning on those. Maybe there should be but I think we can accept that most people buying them will use them responsibly. It seems very knee jerk to put a warning on every single thing that could be harmful if misused.
> Therapeutic means are to address 'ailments'. The ailments in this case are existential and psychological. Projectives are dangerous and require guided initiation
I understand the meaning of therapy and the types of ailments that can be helped by the use of projectives.
If you buy a set of tarot cards they inevitably come with usage instructions so that you can use them successfully and responsibly.
I'm not sure the danger is as great as you suggest. Have you got data showing the harm of using these cards?
> We've been banging on the doors on paganism in the West for a few decades now. And here we are.
Tarot cards have no basis in paganism, they are the creation of well educated men in the 19th century.
> But your quick response here indicates you did not really reflect on what was said.
This was uncalled for. I read your post and responded to the points you made.
> In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing their indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people.
oh lord, come on. the "demonization" of tarot in modern society has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with the fact that its widely understood, right or wrongly as you claim, to be a tool for fortune telling... which is absolutely a crackpot thing just like flat earth and other garbage. im glad you have found a use for it that helps you, thats a good thing, but your understanding of it as a tool in the way you describe it is not how its generally perceived, and that misconception has nothing to do with internalized misogyny.
You can find a tonne of literature on the clinical use of projective. The famous rorsach test is based on the same psychological mechanism.
In terms of logic they do actually have an attempt at systematising both a range of common emotions and a number of archetypal points along life's journey. I know that's maybe not what you meant by logic, but a system that differentiates its output based on input like "Cups, 6", "Coins, 2" etc. works for my definition of logic.
Lastly, and I know you asked in jest, but If your association between the cards and a specific ethnic group is what leads to you judging them as unscientific without first checking then there probably is a level of racism at play. That's nothing to be ashamed of, as everyone carries internalised racism (thanks society). As long as you can recognise it when it comes up in yourself like this and you do the work to combat it then you have nothing to worry about.
>You're bringing future telling into it which is something I've never mentioned or seen mentioned in the circles of the people who use them.
You keep trying to separate tarot reading as fortune telling/ entertainment and tarot reading as a legitimate tool. It may be both but you can't split the 2.
>I've only seen....
And I've only seen tarot cards used as a tool for fortune telling. Is my experience unique? Is my experience less valid than yours?
I'm not so sure about the patriarchy part, but it's certainly wrapped up in the move towards narrowly scientific thinking. Or as Nietzsche would put it, we're too Apollonian and not enough Dionysian.
FWIW I'm also fond of the Tarot, and the I Ching, and find both surprisingly insightful and useful (me of 10 years ago would not believe that I just wrote that).
You keep mentioning Rorsach tests as some kind of gold standard. Rorsach tests are purely based on pseudo-science, though. There is zero empiric / scientific evidence that they do anything useful. So yeah, tarot cards are probably on about the same level as that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement