Had there been any scientific studies that basically had simultaneous tarot decks or other occult phenomena like psychics to see if they converged on the same answer? > [!ai]+ AI > > There have been some studies that have explored the possibility of converging results using tarot or other occult phenomena, but they are generally plagued by methodological issues and have not produced scientifically credible evidence of genuine psychic abilities. These studies often suffer from problems like: > - **Lack of proper controls:** It’s difficult to eliminate the possibility of subtle cues, unconscious biases, or even outright fraud influencing the results. For example, a psychic might pick up on subtle body language cues from the experimenter. > - **Small sample sizes:** Many studies have involved a small number of participants, making it difficult to generalize the findings to a larger population. Statistically significant results are harder to achieve with small samples. > - **Publication bias:** Studies with positive results (suggesting psychic abilities) are more likely to be published than studies with negative results, creating a skewed perception of the evidence. > - **Vague or subjective interpretations:** The interpretations of tarot readings or psychic pronouncements can be highly subjective. What one person considers a “hit” might be considered a “miss” by another. This subjectivity makes it difficult to quantify and analyze the results objectively. > - **Lack of pre-registered hypotheses:** Ideally, researchers should specify their hypotheses and analysis plans *before* conducting the study. This helps prevent “p-hacking,” where researchers manipulate their data analysis until they find a statistically significant result (which might be spurious). > Some specific examples of studies that have attempted to explore these areas include experiments on remote viewing and Ganzfeld experiments. While some proponents claim these studies provide evidence for psychic phenomena, the scientific community generally remains skeptical due to the methodological flaws mentioned above. > **Regarding simultaneous tarot readings:** While there might be anecdotal accounts of multiple tarot readers giving similar readings, there haven’t been rigorous scientific studies specifically designed to test this. Such a study would need to carefully control for factors like the question being asked, the experience level of the readers, and the potential for communication between the readers. > In summary, while some studies have explored related areas, there’s no robust scientific evidence to support the claim that tarot readings or other occult phenomena converge on the same answer in a way that suggests genuine psychic abilities. The existing research is generally considered methodologically flawed and insufficient to convince the scientific community. Propose plausible scenarios and a maximum likelihood outcome > [!ai]+ AI > > Let’s propose some scenarios for a hypothetical study of simultaneous tarot readings and then consider the most likely outcomes: > **Scenario 1: Naive Experiment** > - **Setup:** Three tarot readers, unfamiliar with each other, are each given the same general question (e.g., “What does the future hold for this person regarding career?”). The readings are done separately and then compared. > - **Plausible Outcomes & Likelihood:** > - **High Likelihood:** Significant differences in the readings. Tarot interpretations are highly subjective, and different readers will focus on different cards and spreads. Even with the same question, the narratives they construct will likely vary considerably. > - **Low Likelihood:** Strong convergence on specific details. It’s unlikely that three independent readers would randomly arrive at the same specific predictions (e.g., “a promotion to regional manager in June”). > - **Moderate Likelihood:** General thematic overlap. There might be some broad similarities in the themes addressed (e.g., all readings mention challenges or changes related to work), but the specifics would likely differ. > **Scenario 2: Controlled Experiment (Attempting to Minimize Bias)** > - **Setup:** The question is more specific (e.g., “Will this person change jobs within the next six months?”). Readers are screened for experience level and given identical decks. The readings are recorded and analyzed by independent judges blind to the readers’ identities. > - **Plausible Outcomes & Likelihood:** > - **High Likelihood:** Results close to chance. Even with tighter controls, the inherent ambiguity of tarot interpretation makes it unlikely that the readings will consistently align with the actual outcome. > - **Low Likelihood:** Statistically significant predictive accuracy. This would be a surprising result that would warrant further investigation, but it’s highly improbable given the lack of any established mechanism for tarot to predict the future. > - **Moderate Likelihood:** Slight deviations from chance, potentially due to subtle biases in interpretation or the judges’ analysis. These deviations would likely be small and not replicable in further studies. > **Scenario 3: “Stacked Deck” (Intentional or Unintentional Collusion)** > - **Setup:** The readers know each other or have some prior communication about the question or the person being read for. There might be subtle cues from the experimenter or the environment. > - **Plausible Outcomes & Likelihood:** > - **High Likelihood:** Apparent convergence due to collusion or shared biases. The readers might consciously or unconsciously influence each other’s interpretations, leading to a false impression of agreement. > - **Low Likelihood:** Genuine convergence independent of collusion. Even in a biased setup, it’s still unlikely that the readings would converge on highly specific details without some form of communication or shared influence. > **Maximum Likelihood Outcome Across All Scenarios:** > The most likely outcome of any rigorous study of simultaneous tarot readings is that the readings will **not show meaningful convergence beyond what would be expected by chance or explained by subjective interpretation and potential biases.** While some general thematic overlap might occur, specific predictions are unlikely to align consistently. This aligns with the broader scientific consensus that there is no credible evidence for psychic abilities.