talkmagic.co.uk

I learnt the Tarot backwards. I got a gig as a card reader and skimmed through Joe Ridings's course on the day, then did the gig. After that I began to study the cards in a bit more detail.
I have to say that Paul's advice is usually spot on (and Reader of Minds highly recommended). Beyond that, go into a pub, read someone's cards, even if you feel you aren't ready, and watch the queue form. At the end of an hour or two you will be far better at it than when you started.
It's like swimming; all the theory is great but at some point you have to jump into the water. The good news is it is very enjoyable.

To the chagrin of Skeptics and other such pseudo-intellects the general public isn't stupid and more so, most of the people that believe in Readings/Psychics have fairly high IQs and Education status. . . not to mention, income levels. Too, the greater number of folk that know a Psychic/Reader is going to be at an event have some understanding of the Cards (tarot in particular), Astrology and Numerology because they've either dabbled with or steadily participate in situations that expose them to said pseudo-sciences.

It's best that you have a bit more than a rudimentary understanding of the system you are using. So learn at least one system well.

I agree entirely that you should learn one system well. And naturally that should be the Mark Lewis system.

Craig Browning wrote:...most of the people that believe in Readings/Psychics have fairly high IQs and Education status. . . not to mention, income levels.

Craig, if you are going to make a sweeping statement like that you are going to have to back it up. Otherwise you are just muddying the waters.

To be fair to Reverend Browning although there are of course exceptions I have indeed found my clients to be fairly intelligent and have reasonable income levels. I do a lot of psychic fairs and have seen this to be true. Mind you some of the psychics themselves don't seem to be that bright. I won't mention any names in case they put a hex on me.

At psychic fairs most of the people have good disposable income, because psychic fairs tend to charge quite a lot. It is a self-selection process. And obviously if you charge quite a lot for private readings the same self-selection kicks in.

I tend to be paid by the venue, and at such events I get a cross-section of clients, from the dumb to the intelligent, from the poor to the rich. There is no discernible trend.

However among the super-intelligent there tends to be very little belief in superstitions of any sort. The overwhelming majority of scientific Nobel Prize winners, for instance, are atheists and sceptics.

Craig's claim strikes me as very dubious, and seems to be more about building up his self-image of what he does, rather than reflection the reality. And I won't accept such a sweeping statement unless there is real evidence to back it up.

I used to do psychic parties and 90% of them were in the "poor side of town". I did notice that the parties in the posher end tended to be viewed more as a bit of fun by the ladies, whereas the poorer folk saw it as deadly serious. But this is Sheffield, which is always a bit of an odd place.

Sheffield is in Yorkshire so of course that speaks for itself. I also used to do most of my psychic parties in the poor side of town in Dublin. I used to fear for my life, not so much going into the houses but entering the neighborhood. One taxi driver refused to leave until he saw me safely into the house.

However, all that altered when I changed my format and price structure. I no longer do or recommend the format you read about where all the women pay 10 quid or some low fee and get a mentalism show and a quick palm reading. And you invite from 10 to 20 people. I now have a maximum of 6 people, eliminate the show, do a half hour reading and charge considerably more. I could do 8 or 10 people but it would do my head in.

As for being paid by the venue most of my work in this area is when I am booked for corporate parties and again the clients seem to have their wits and income about them.

As for Tony's demographics regarding intelligence and belief systems I find it is a function of outlook and occupation rather than brains. You will rarely (perhaps never) get lawyers or doctors coming for readings but you will get plenty of businessmen. And you have to have some brains to succeed in business. You get plenty of writers but you won't get engineers.
You get police officers too although Tony may have a point about intelligence there with the Gardai (Irish Police) who always remind me of the Keystone Cops. However, cops from other countries tend to have some intelligence on the odd occasion.

I have also had plenty of politicians in for readings although their intelligence may well be debated. Entertainers galore too. Some of them have brains.

As for "super intelligent" -yes- I have had those too. And here is an odd thing that surprised me when I first got into the psychic business. You would think that magicians would be very disdainful and sceptical about the psychic world. To my astonishment a large percentage of them are just as believing as anyone else. They are human beings after all.

Well, some of them anyway.

FRK wrote:I have been studying the Tarot for a while and have all the card meaning quite well sorted in my own mind.
The problem is getting a simple spread of even 3 cards in to a coherent reading.
Any one got any advice on how to link card together or which card to put more emphasis on.

Thanks

I had a bit of trouble with this to begin with too. I find it easier to do a larger spread, 5 cards minimum, or a Celtic Cross with 9 cards. It's fairly easy to spin out a half decent story using 9 cards, and you can do so logically too.

If you are reading only 3 cards at a time, what I would advise you do is to practise by making up a series of random question cards (am I going to be lucky in love, win the lottery, how is my health going to be, etc) shuffle, and shuffle your tarot. Lay the three cards out, pick a random question card, and practise making the cards fit the question. You could even skip the random question cards, shuffle your tarot, and practise making a coherent story from the three cards.

I also think it's easier to read strangers than people you know. That way, you're not trying to make any connections with things you know about them already. Another tip - don't be afraid to ask the person you are reading for lots of questions - it doesn't have to be a one-way street. A general question, such as 'would you say that you're more of a family orientated person, rather than a business orientated person' (or something general relating to what the queriant is discussing) can open things up a lot, and you can usely extrapolate a lot from even the most general of answers.

I do agree that strangers are easier to read than people you know. I do not agree, however, in asking too many questions. If you do this the client will start to think, "I thought you were supposed to be telling me"
Questioning the client should be kept to a minimum. You may have to do it once or twice but the less the better.
The reading will be more impressive that way.

mark lewis wrote:I do not agree, however, in asking too many questions. If you do this the client will start to think, "I thought you were supposed to be telling me"
Questioning the client should be kept to a minimum. You may have to do it once or twice but the less the better.
The reading will be more impressive that way.

Julian Moore, in one of his publications, said that if it feels like a reading, it is a bad reading. If it feels like a conversation, it is a good reading. If it feels like you have made a friend, it is a great reading. A certain amount of questioning, if done the right way, can make a reading a lot more powerful.

TonyB wrote:Julian Moore, in one of his publications, said that if it feels like a reading, it is a bad reading. If it feels like a conversation, it is a good reading. If it feels like you have made a friend, it is a great reading. A certain amount of questioning, if done the right way, can make a reading a lot more powerful.

Excellent advice.

TonyB wrote:

Craig Browning wrote:...most of the people that believe in Readings/Psychics have fairly high IQs and Education status. . . not to mention, income levels.

Craig, if you are going to make a sweeping statement like that you are going to have to back it up. Otherwise you are just muddying the waters.

I'm not going to get in to a pissing contest over something that is well documented. The catch is cynics loathe the facts outside their own.

Craig's claim strikes me as very dubious, and seems to be more about building up his self-image of what he does, rather than reflection the reality. And I won't accept such a sweeping statement unless there is real evidence to back it up.

I don't understand how, what I said is any different to what Mark and for that matter, you just justified? ? ?

What I said is that the majority of people that get readings AREN'T STUPID and that many have lost of scholastic wall-paper in their expensively decorated dens. I wasn't pointing to the various Atheists that likewise fit this same mold but maybe I should point a bit at histories great minds like Newton, who was an Alchemist and noted Reader according to a recently aired Nat. Geo episode, in which they were researching his Alchemical writings and related oddities. Of course, he wasn't the only Renaissance and beyond thinker and even today you have those of high scholarly praise that have a deep-seeded belief in Reincarnation as well as subtle energy.

Last I checked I was not a k-9 and so I will not play fetch. Most of what I know on these things I literally happened on to and so I'd theorize a great and powerful mind such as you can get off his dead end and do the footwork himself if he wants to this this or that demographic. . . understanding of course, that ALL STATISTICS ARE LIES! The information can be adjusted to what you want to present as "fact". I've seen this done first hand within the Market & Research industry and I've read volume upon volume of social-political situations in which is proves a constant... and before you say that hard science doesn't work that way, explain to me why so many major members of the brainiac society support the idea that Global Warming/Climate Change is FACT while those paid by this or that oil/coal/chemical company don't see it and can "prove" to folks that they are right?

The "Facts" don't exist in that either side of most any issue can prove their argument. That includes this particular dead horse cynics love to poke and prod for the sake of humiliating anyone that dare think contrary to themselves. . .

. . . reminds me of this religious group that came out of Rome a couple a thousand years ago

Craig, if you charge $1,000 for a reading of course your clients are going to be upper income levels. The rest can't afford you. So that does not prove your sweeping generalisation; in fact it doesn't even support it.

And insulting people like me does not help. I have never read someone's clothes line. When I do readings, I do readings.

I know that Newton was an alchemist. Alchemy was the experimental science of that era, and every early scientist began from what proceeded him; alchemy and astrology, among other things. 90% of all Nobel science laureates today are atheists. That is a fact.

If you have organised yourself so that your clients are upper income level and highly educated, that is your marketing choice. It is not a reflection of belief systems within society as a whole.

Craig Browning wrote:The catch is cynics loathe the facts outside their own.

Doesn't everybody? That's why Sigmund Pavlov invented confirmation bias.