INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Peter on April 23, 2008, 09:19:55 AM
-
Not being an expert in tarot divination, I would appreciate any input from those who know more about it than I do. I've been reading about tarot, and based on what I've learned, I've devised an experiment which could potentially validate tarot as a predictive method, but I'd like feedback on the experiment so that adjustments can be made if I've misunderstood something.
Using a Rider-Waite tarot deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider-Waite-Smith_deck), I propose to take a large number of readings of myself using the five card spread (http://www.angelpaths.com/spreads.html). Each time the cards are dealt, each card and it's position in the spread will be noted. While taking these readings, I'll focus on the question "What is my current situation?", unless someone suggests a better question. The deck will be well shuffled by myself between readings.
My theory is that if tarot is valid, there will be a statistically significant difference between the cards dealt for each position in the spread and what would be expected to have occurred by chance. Since there are 78 cards in the deck, by my calculations each card would be expected by chance to appear 6.41 times per 100 readings and to appear in a particular position in the spread 1.28 times per 100 readings. If tarot is purely a chance phenomenon, the results should increasingly approach these two figures the more times the cards are dealt. As an experimental control, my computer will pick cards using a random number generator.
-
You may unconsciously cheat yourself. What you see is what you want to see.
-
You may unconsciously cheat yourself. What you see is what you want to see.
.....QED
-
I agree with Randy. Tarot is a personal thing, at least for those who are reading their own cards.
-
Peter, you really should try the gold standart in expermentation, the double blinded trial. You could have some practice with logic to, when you figure out what is what.
-
Peter - 1
Tarot fans - 0
Oh wait, maybe it works if we cut down the tree of Yggdrasil and make into mystical paper. :headbang2:
-
Coming to think of it, someone was trying to sell me and my mate Gypsy charms. Clearly Durham is full of superstitious twats.
-
I agree with Randy. Tarot is a personal thing, at least for those who are reading their own cards.
Are you saying that the cards you get in a spread are entirely random?
-
No, she is saying that sometimes when we want something bad enough, to go a certain way in this case, we interpet things as such.
You want to believe you have telekinesis, and things that are suggestive, are automatically interpeted as what you want.
Its the way the mind works.
You get positive boost in neurotransmitters from eating foods which you are allergic to, to numb the toxicity, when makes you less aware.
/me appologi
zes to Peter, just do the best with what you got, like I am, no one is perfect with there weakness and strenghts. Everyone has their issues.
-
No, she is saying that sometimes when we want something bad enough, to go a certain way in this case, we interpet things as such.
You want to believe you have telekinesis, and are suggestive, are automatically interpeted as what you want.
Its the way the mind works.
You get positive boost in neurotransmitters from eating foods which you are allergic to, to numb the toxicity, when makes you less aware.
You do realise that Peter has put you on his ignore list, Randy.
-
Wow, sorta seems like he is responding to my post, doesn't seem like much ignoring to me. That doesn't sound logical.
-
Wow, sorta seems like he is responding to my post, doesn't seem like much ignoring to me. That doesn't sound logical.
I'm receiving your posts telepathically.
-
Yes, it will be our secret :laugh:
I never jump to conclusion like that, everyone is not like you.
-
Wow, sorta seems like he is responding to my post, doesn't seem like much ignoring to me. That doesn't sound logical.
I'm receiving your posts telepathically.
:pwned:
:plus:
-
I know that seems easier for you, but its best you get it through your head, everyone is not same, the idea of self concept.
-
Wow, sorta seems like he is responding to my post, doesn't seem like much ignoring to me. That doesn't sound logical.
I'm receiving your posts telepathically.
:pwned:
:plus:
:agreed:
-
What's ironic about this thread is that an atheist is proving tarot to be either genuine or not by empirical evidence while its supporters are doing nothing of the sort to support their bullshit hobby.
Science wins again.
-
Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that there are particles smaller than atoms!
-
Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that there are particles smaller than atoms!
Um, there are?
-
The people who think I am pawned have a few pieces missing :laugh:
-
What's ironic about this thread is that an atheist is proving tarot to be either genuine or not by empirical evidence while its supporters are doing nothing of the sort to support their bullshit hobby.
Science wins again.
I've already put my bit in the indigo children thread. I find this thread irrelevant.
-
What's ironic about this thread is that an atheist is proving tarot to be either genuine or not by empirical evidence while its supporters are doing nothing of the sort to support their bullshit hobby.
Science wins again.
I've already put my bit in the indigo children thread. I find this thread irrelavent.
Peter doesn't lie, you guys do -- to yourselves.
-
Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that there are particles smaller than atoms!
Um, there are?
No, there aren't, but some upstart is always poking around with new theories...
Well, that was the common thought in the 19th century...
Now we know that the particles are made up of particles.
So, didn't they exist before we had proof of them, of course they did, we just didn't believe it.
-
What's ironic about this thread is that an atheist is proving tarot to be either genuine or not by empirical evidence while its supporters are doing nothing of the sort to support their bullshit hobby.
Science wins again.
I've already put my bit in the indigo children thread. I find this thread irrelavent.
Peter doesn't lie, you guys do -- to yourselves.
I don't see peter as a liar either, and I like his seeming dislike of generalisation and genuine love of knowledge (cringe, sounds awful) which was the only reason I kept up with dialogue at all.
-
This thread grew out of controll when Peter attacked me, but that is not as important as that fact their is a time for serious and joking. I was willing to make amends, and I still am willing.
-
Can't be arsed to get into this discussion to be frank.
I'm taking pics of my dream catcher and that's it.
I find these sort of discussions pointless really, because most people don't change their point of view that easily, especially when they are convinced that something is a load of bollocks.
-
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eerGJ0TY7_I
:pwned:
-
Can't be arsed to get into this discussion to be frank.
I'm taking pics of my dream catcher and that's it.
I find these sort of discussions pointless really, because most people don't change their point of view that easily, especially when they are convinced that something is a load of bollocks.
how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. :laugh:
-
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eerGJ0TY7_I
:pwned:
i take it you'd like me to read your tarot next time you come round then, pea? :LMAO:
-
Can't be arsed to get into this discussion to be frank.
I'm taking pics of my dream catcher and that's it.
I find these sort of discussions pointless really, because most people don't change their point of view that easily, especially when they are convinced that something is a load of bollocks.
how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. :laugh:
Doesn't seem to apply to me either :( Everything Peaguy is saying seems to apply to Peter more, especially the ad hom attacks.
-
^:laugh:
What Peter fails to see, is that most people (generalising here) don't base their whole lives around a pack of tarot cards - which I think is what you're referring to in your rant Pea. Tarot cards are not the new "bible" for new agey folk, they are just something which guides you, clears things up a bit and may answer a question or two.
Something to be taken with a pinch of salt.
On the other hand Peter, what you fail to see is that not everything can be explained scientifically in the same way as not everything is black and white, or bullshit and science.
I could help you with your little experiment but as I said before, I really see no point to it.
-
Can't be arsed to get into this discussion to be frank.
I'm taking pics of my dream catcher and that's it.
I find these sort of discussions pointless really, because most people don't change their point of view that easily, especially when they are convinced that something is a load of bollocks.
how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. :laugh:
Doesn't seem to apply to me either :( Everything Peaguy is saying seems to apply to Peter more, especially the ad hom attacks.
womma, we are just unique, obviously. :laugh:
:-*
-
Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that there are particles smaller than atoms!
Um, there are?
No, there aren't, but some upstart is always poking around with new theories...
Well, that was the common thought in the 19th century...
Now we know that the particles are made up of particles.
So, didn't they exist before we had proof of them, of course they did, we just didn't believe it.
Before we had evidence of subatomic particles, there was no reason to believe in them. When the first evidence of the existence of subatomic particles emerged, scientists raced to verify their existence and quantify their characteristics, giving rise to the entire field of particle physics. The difference between particle physics and many of these 'upstart theories' that people seem so fond of is that particle physics is testable, repeatable and supported by a mountain of evidence while many 'upstart theories' are untestable or are testable but fail those tests and thus don't have a scrap of evidence to their name. The upstart theories that are testable and repeatable, as the theory of subatomic particles was in it's early days, quickly acquire ample supporting evidence and are incorporated into the main-stream scientific understanding.
-
:pwned:
i take it you'd like me to read your tarot next time you come round then, pea? :LMAO:
You wanna see me wield Excalibur again?
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Shuggy/?action=view¤t=subjectivereality.flv
Subjective reality for the win!
(Wasn't saying fuck you to Lucifer, so don't bite, people. :P)
-
^:laugh:
What Peter fails to see, is that most people (generalising here) don't base their whole lives around a pack of tarot cards - which I think is what you're referring to in your rant Pea. Tarot cards are not the new "bible" for new agey folk, they are just something which guides you, clears things up a bit and may answer a question or two.
Something to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I never thought for a moment that anyone here based their lives around tarot cards. People here are making claims, however, as to the efficacy of tarot as a predictive medium, and I'm of a disposition to examine the evidential basis for such claims and to test them.
On the other hand Peter, what you fail to see is that not everything can be explained scientifically in the same way as not everything is black and white, or bullshit and science.
It doesn't have to be explained; merely being shown to work is sufficient. We still don't have a rigorous explanation of gravity yet, but we know it works as experiments that test it give repeatable and highly predictable results. If something can not be examined scientifically, then that's a different matter, as it means the phenomena has no bearing on the physical world. Even neutrinos are detectable by the ingenious instruments of science, and they can pass through a light-year of solid lead without interacting with anything.
I could help you with your little experiment but as I said before, I really see no point to it.
That's ok. If tarot means so little to you that you're not even interested in determining if the purported effect is real or not, I understand why you'd be unwilling to devote time to such an experiment.
-
:pwned:
i take it you'd like me to read your tarot next time you come round then, pea? :LMAO:
You wanna see me wield Excalibur again?
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Shuggy/?action=view¤t=subjectivereality.flv
Subjective reality for the win!
(Wasn't saying fuck you to Lucifer, so don't bite, people. :P)
:thumbup: That's more like it and funny too. But you should try, you might like. ;D Subjective reality for the win!!
-
Next thing you know, people will be trying to tell us that there are particles smaller than atoms!
Um, there are?
No, there aren't, but some upstart is always poking around with new theories...
Well, that was the common thought in the 19th century...
Now we know that the particles are made up of particles.
So, didn't they exist before we had proof of them, of course they did, we just didn't believe it.
Before we had evidence of subatomic particles, there was no reason to believe in them. When the first evidence of the existence of subatomic particles emerged, scientists raced to verify their existence and quantify their characteristics, giving rise to the entire field of particle physics. The difference between particle physics and many of these 'upstart theories' that people seem so fond of is that particle physics is testable, repeatable and supported by a mountain of evidence while many 'upstart theories' are untestable or are testable but fail those tests and thus don't have a scrap of evidence to their name. The upstart theories that are testable and repeatable, as the theory of subatomic particles was in it's early days, quickly acquire ample supporting evidence and are incorporated into the main-stream scientific understanding.
No, Peter, you are wrong. Plain and simple. The theories came before the proof. And originally, the experiments were NOT repeatable, as it was new science and not altogether understood, and the one's with the theories didn't always get it right, so many were labeled as "you're nuts". It was only until someone of stature stated (or stole) a theory to work on and present that it became generally accepted. Then other scientists would get about to prove or disprove it. (Many proofs didn't come for years, if at all). I believe that besides just being a walking bag of chemicals, there is a spirit in me, that is UNIQUELY me. I don't need to prove it to you in order for me to believe it.
You have GREAT hindsight, but your nearly blind looking forward.
-
Yes I am open to such things as tarrot cards, but I will not jump to conclusions.
-
:pwned:
i take it you'd like me to read your tarot next time you come round then, pea? :LMAO:
You wanna see me wield Excalibur again?
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v179/Shuggy/?action=view¤t=subjectivereality.flv
Subjective reality for the win!
(Wasn't saying fuck you to Lucifer, so don't bite, people. :P)
no - i fear for the safety of your goods and chattels. :LMAO:
-
:yawn:
It's not about whether tarot is important to me or not, it's more of the fact that I can't be arsed getting into a discussion about it.
Maybe tomorrow when I have the energy.
-
how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. :laugh:
Same question for you as choccybiccy, then - do you think it's magic making it work, or can it all be explained by things like self-fulfilling prophecy?
Edit: ooops, should have read the other thread first.
-
how about me then, petal: i'm convinced it's bollocks, i read the tarot and am fucking good at it, and i've seen enough evidence (i.e. "results") to think it works. :laugh:
Same question for you as choccybiccy, then - do you think it's magic making it work, or can it all be explained by things like self-fulfilling prophecy?
Edit: ooops, should have read the other thread first.
yes, to all of the above. :laugh:
-
:lol: me too :plus:
-
;)
:-*
-
Not being an expert in tarot divination, I would appreciate any input from those who know more about it than I do. I've been reading about tarot, and based on what I've learned, I've devised an experiment which could potentially validate tarot as a predictive method, but I'd like feedback on the experiment so that adjustments can be made if I've misunderstood something.
Using a Rider-Waite tarot deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider-Waite-Smith_deck), I propose to take a large number of readings of myself using the five card spread (http://www.angelpaths.com/spreads.html). Each time the cards are dealt, each card and it's position in the spread will be noted. While taking these readings, I'll focus on the question "What is my current situation?", unless someone suggests a better question. The deck will be well shuffled by myself between readings.
My theory is that if tarot is valid, there will be a statistically significant difference between the cards dealt for each position in the spread and what would be expected to have occurred by chance. Since there are 78 cards in the deck, by my calculations each card would be expected by chance to appear 6.41 times per 100 readings and to appear in a particular position in the spread 1.28 times per 100 readings. If tarot is purely a chance phenomenon, the results should increasingly approach these two figures the more times the cards are dealt. As an experimental control, my computer will pick cards using a random number generator.
You'd prolly have to do a hell of a lot of retrials to be able to get somehting you can properly work with (as in, more than just the first 100), but it would be an interesting exercise to say the least. Even if it didn't statistcially seem to be random, though, you woudln't necessariuly prove anything- it could be chalked up to improper shuffling/irregular cards, etc. If you do it, I'd rather like to know what conlcusions you draw.
-
Not being an expert in tarot divination, I would appreciate any input from those who know more about it than I do. I've been reading about tarot, and based on what I've learned, I've devised an experiment which could potentially validate tarot as a predictive method, but I'd like feedback on the experiment so that adjustments can be made if I've misunderstood something.
Using a Rider-Waite tarot deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider-Waite-Smith_deck), I propose to take a large number of readings of myself using the five card spread (http://www.angelpaths.com/spreads.html). Each time the cards are dealt, each card and it's position in the spread will be noted. While taking these readings, I'll focus on the question "What is my current situation?", unless someone suggests a better question. The deck will be well shuffled by myself between readings.
My theory is that if tarot is valid, there will be a statistically significant difference between the cards dealt for each position in the spread and what would be expected to have occurred by chance. Since there are 78 cards in the deck, by my calculations each card would be expected by chance to appear 6.41 times per 100 readings and to appear in a particular position in the spread 1.28 times per 100 readings. If tarot is purely a chance phenomenon, the results should increasingly approach these two figures the more times the cards are dealt. As an experimental control, my computer will pick cards using a random number generator.
You'd prolly have to do a hell of a lot of retrials to be able to get somehting you can properly work with (as in, more than just the first 100), but it would be an interesting exercise to say the least. Even if it didn't statistcially seem to be random, though, you woudln't necessariuly prove anything- it could be chalked up to improper shuffling/irregular cards, etc. If you do it, I'd rather like to know what conlcusions you draw.
I think it'll be a rather boring experiment; kind of like dropping a rock hundreds of times to see if it flies up into the sky. :P
My first stumbling block is my lack of a tarot card deck. I'm thinking I could make a set by cutting up some card and writing on each one which tarot card it represents.
-
Not being an expert in tarot divination, I would appreciate any input from those who know more about it than I do. I've been reading about tarot, and based on what I've learned, I've devised an experiment which could potentially validate tarot as a predictive method, but I'd like feedback on the experiment so that adjustments can be made if I've misunderstood something.
Using a Rider-Waite tarot deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider-Waite-Smith_deck), I propose to take a large number of readings of myself using the five card spread (http://www.angelpaths.com/spreads.html). Each time the cards are dealt, each card and it's position in the spread will be noted. While taking these readings, I'll focus on the question "What is my current situation?", unless someone suggests a better question. The deck will be well shuffled by myself between readings.
My theory is that if tarot is valid, there will be a statistically significant difference between the cards dealt for each position in the spread and what would be expected to have occurred by chance. Since there are 78 cards in the deck, by my calculations each card would be expected by chance to appear 6.41 times per 100 readings and to appear in a particular position in the spread 1.28 times per 100 readings. If tarot is purely a chance phenomenon, the results should increasingly approach these two figures the more times the cards are dealt. As an experimental control, my computer will pick cards using a random number generator.
You'd prolly have to do a hell of a lot of retrials to be able to get somehting you can properly work with (as in, more than just the first 100), but it would be an interesting exercise to say the least. Even if it didn't statistcially seem to be random, though, you woudln't necessariuly prove anything- it could be chalked up to improper shuffling/irregular cards, etc. If you do it, I'd rather like to know what conlcusions you draw.
I think it'll be a rather boring experiment; kind of like dropping a rock hundreds of times to see if it flies up into the sky. :P
My first stumbling block is my lack of a tarot card deck. I'm thinking I could make a set by cutting up some card and writing on each one which tarot card it represents.
There are tarot websites you could use instead of buying a deck. I asked it for a reading for you, using your question:
http://www.facade.com/tarot/personal/?UID=585039&Date=5%2F2%2F2008&Name=Anonymous&Query=What+is+my+current+situation%3F&Deck=rider_waite&Reading=fourfold
-
Not being an expert in tarot divination, I would appreciate any input from those who know more about it than I do. I've been reading about tarot, and based on what I've learned, I've devised an experiment which could potentially validate tarot as a predictive method, but I'd like feedback on the experiment so that adjustments can be made if I've misunderstood something.
Using a Rider-Waite tarot deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider-Waite-Smith_deck), I propose to take a large number of readings of myself using the five card spread (http://www.angelpaths.com/spreads.html). Each time the cards are dealt, each card and it's position in the spread will be noted. While taking these readings, I'll focus on the question "What is my current situation?", unless someone suggests a better question. The deck will be well shuffled by myself between readings.
My theory is that if tarot is valid, there will be a statistically significant difference between the cards dealt for each position in the spread and what would be expected to have occurred by chance. Since there are 78 cards in the deck, by my calculations each card would be expected by chance to appear 6.41 times per 100 readings and to appear in a particular position in the spread 1.28 times per 100 readings. If tarot is purely a chance phenomenon, the results should increasingly approach these two figures the more times the cards are dealt. As an experimental control, my computer will pick cards using a random number generator.
You'd prolly have to do a hell of a lot of retrials to be able to get somehting you can properly work with (as in, more than just the first 100), but it would be an interesting exercise to say the least. Even if it didn't statistcially seem to be random, though, you woudln't necessariuly prove anything- it could be chalked up to improper shuffling/irregular cards, etc. If you do it, I'd rather like to know what conlcusions you draw.
I think it'll be a rather boring experiment; kind of like dropping a rock hundreds of times to see if it flies up into the sky. :P
My first stumbling block is my lack of a tarot card deck. I'm thinking I could make a set by cutting up some card and writing on each one which tarot card it represents.
There are tarot websites you could use instead of buying a deck. I asked it for a reading for you, using your question:
http://www.facade.com/tarot/personal/?UID=585039&Date=5%2F2%2F2008&Name=Anonymous&Query=What+is+my+current+situation%3F&Deck=rider_waite&Reading=fourfold
Thanks, but I really need a RL deck to do the experiment properly. I just wrote my computer control this evening. The results are given in the following format:
[Name of the card, the number of times the card was drawn, [the number of times card was drawn in first, second, third, fourth, fifth position]
The program made 100,000 readings using the five-card spread. Each time a card was drawn for a spread, it's position in the spread was noted. From this, the program later calculated how many times the card had been drawn for a spread and how many times it had been drawn for each position in a spread. I wasn't thinking about anything in particular while it ran the first time.
0 - The Fool 6574 [1283, 1342, 1321, 1320, 1308]
I - The Magician or Juggler 6351 [1309, 1266, 1228, 1288, 1260]
II - The High Priestess 6518 [1280, 1346, 1288, 1247, 1357]
III - The Empress 6540 [1286, 1343, 1332, 1326, 1253]
IV - The Emperor 6599 [1351, 1292, 1364, 1302, 1290]
V - The Hierophant or Pope 6399 [1273, 1295, 1270, 1288, 1273]
VI - The Lovers 6566 [1348, 1329, 1306, 1365, 1218]
VII - The Chariot 6389 [1274, 1283, 1246, 1268, 1318]
VIII - Strength 6450 [1268, 1311, 1269, 1282, 1320]
IX - The Hermit 6454 [1297, 1276, 1247, 1321, 1313]
X - Wheel of Fortune 6503 [1285, 1307, 1325, 1285, 1301]
XI - Justice 6484 [1290, 1263, 1277, 1366, 1288]
XIII - Death 6423 [1342, 1266, 1258, 1296, 1261]
XIV - Temperance 6434 [1303, 1333, 1271, 1283, 1244]
XV - The Devil 6460 [1328, 1259, 1290, 1285, 1298]
XVI - The Tower 6508 [1328, 1246, 1296, 1334, 1304]
XVII - The Star 6504 [1325, 1284, 1335, 1274, 1286]
XVIII - The Moon 6496 [1343, 1269, 1321, 1294, 1269]
XIX - The Sun 6566 [1310, 1333, 1297, 1287, 1339]
XX - Judgement 6600 [1359, 1321, 1334, 1276, 1310]
XXI - The World 6480 [1313, 1324, 1268, 1293, 1282]
Ace of Wands 6442 [1330, 1266, 1254, 1269, 1323]
Two of Wands 6525 [1273, 1313, 1310, 1289, 1340]
Three of Wands 6368 [1274, 1287, 1228, 1284, 1295]
Four of Wands 6486 [1307, 1329, 1277, 1299, 1274]
Five of Wands 6512 [1283, 1332, 1325, 1257, 1315]
Six of Wands 6491 [1336, 1281, 1299, 1289, 1286]
Seven of Wands 6584 [1270, 1327, 1318, 1319, 1350]
Eight of Wands 6562 [1290, 1282, 1403, 1257, 1330]
Nine of Wands 6512 [1277, 1342, 1347, 1268, 1278]
Ten of Wands 6393 [1271, 1257, 1296, 1285, 1284]
Page of Wands 6533 [1307, 1265, 1301, 1286, 1374]
Knight of Wands 6374 [1266, 1225, 1297, 1283, 1303]
Queen of Wands 6513 [1295, 1276, 1339, 1304, 1299]
King of Wands 6464 [1276, 1308, 1314, 1266, 1300]
Ace of Pentacles 6462 [1286, 1277, 1345, 1272, 1282]
Two of Pentacles 6513 [1296, 1217, 1338, 1375, 1287]
Three of Pentacles 6432 [1332, 1267, 1298, 1260, 1275]
Four of Pentacles 6431 [1249, 1328, 1292, 1244, 1318]
Five of Pentacles 6511 [1283, 1329, 1259, 1318, 1322]
Six of Pentacles 6508 [1302, 1303, 1298, 1286, 1319]
Seven of Pentacles 6507 [1259, 1329, 1286, 1348, 1285]
Eight of Pentacles 6431 [1248, 1336, 1233, 1252, 1362]
Nine of Pentacles 6513 [1266, 1333, 1304, 1330, 1280]
Ten of Pentacles 6536 [1251, 1371, 1318, 1298, 1298]
Page of Pentacles 6423 [1259, 1335, 1276, 1292, 1261]
Knight of Pentacles 6456 [1287, 1298, 1315, 1253, 1303]
Queen of Pentacles 6596 [1354, 1351, 1284, 1276, 1331]
King of Pentacles 6487 [1249, 1291, 1300, 1342, 1305]
Ace of Cups 6527 [1291, 1283, 1344, 1304, 1305]
Two of Cups 6382 [1340, 1253, 1280, 1237, 1272]
Three of Cups 6441 [1333, 1240, 1277, 1296, 1295]
Four of Cups 6482 [1297, 1248, 1341, 1295, 1301]
Five of Cups 6572 [1330, 1313, 1306, 1362, 1261]
Six of Cups 6640 [1311, 1401, 1335, 1308, 1285]
Seven of Cups 6528 [1316, 1299, 1310, 1308, 1295]
Eight of Cups 6497 [1321, 1292, 1285, 1278, 1321]
Nine of Cups 6569 [1373, 1246, 1299, 1345, 1306]
Ten of Cups 6625 [1318, 1324, 1307, 1308, 1368]
Page of Cups 6437 [1254, 1330, 1337, 1280, 1236]
Knight of Cups 6596 [1349, 1297, 1366, 1309, 1275]
Queen of Cups 6585 [1323, 1305, 1295, 1339, 1323]
King of Cups 6422 [1285, 1287, 1271, 1296, 1283]
Ace of Swords 6652 [1334, 1316, 1304, 1394, 1304]
Two of Swords 6595 [1320, 1326, 1325, 1326, 1298]
Three of Swords 6452 [1252, 1313, 1258, 1318, 1311]
Four of Swords 6445 [1249, 1257, 1310, 1283, 1346]
Five of Swords 6452 [1273, 1265, 1344, 1322, 1248]
Six of Swords 6458 [1268, 1314, 1238, 1354, 1284]
Seven of Swords 6464 [1286, 1273, 1292, 1327, 1286]
Eight of Swords 6452 [1263, 1327, 1273, 1327, 1262]
Nine of Swords 6448 [1307, 1266, 1287, 1272, 1316]
Ten of Swords 6612 [1304, 1325, 1361, 1321, 1301]
Page of Swords 6463 [1318, 1347, 1248, 1232, 1318]
Knight of Swords 6444 [1283, 1273, 1294, 1317, 1277]
Queen of Swords 6496 [1320, 1314, 1248, 1291, 1323]
King of Swords 6401 [1311, 1223, 1268, 1270, 1329]
There was very little variance in the results, and although I haven't done a formal analysis, it seems quite random. I ran it a second time, again making 100,000 spreads, while I focussed on thinking about the question 'What is my current situation?'. These are the results from that run:
0 - The Fool 6459 [1246, 1315, 1282, 1352, 1264]
I - The Magician or Juggler 6478 [1339, 1272, 1312, 1251, 1304]
II - The High Priestess 6533 [1287, 1380, 1324, 1277, 1265]
III - The Empress 6656 [1372, 1309, 1350, 1310, 1315]
IV - The Emperor 6376 [1280, 1257, 1266, 1313, 1260]
V - The Hierophant or Pope 6501 [1294, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1325]
VI - The Lovers 6404 [1258, 1237, 1299, 1303, 1307]
VII - The Chariot 6441 [1329, 1302, 1249, 1291, 1270]
VIII - Strength 6480 [1304, 1294, 1335, 1252, 1295]
IX - The Hermit 6436 [1269, 1322, 1261, 1272, 1312]
X - Wheel of Fortune 6532 [1313, 1337, 1270, 1273, 1339]
XI - Justice 6486 [1310, 1323, 1276, 1263, 1314]
XIII - Death 6521 [1287, 1259, 1327, 1314, 1334]
XIV - Temperance 6578 [1328, 1289, 1284, 1364, 1313]
XV - The Devil 6511 [1256, 1291, 1361, 1292, 1311]
XVI - The Tower 6573 [1282, 1327, 1266, 1326, 1372]
XVII - The Star 6316 [1209, 1264, 1285, 1324, 1234]
XVIII - The Moon 6485 [1281, 1277, 1276, 1351, 1300]
XIX - The Sun 6525 [1270, 1313, 1333, 1287, 1322]
XX - Judgement 6418 [1258, 1296, 1314, 1262, 1288]
XXI - The World 6475 [1279, 1314, 1347, 1282, 1253]
Ace of Wands 6621 [1349, 1286, 1372, 1337, 1277]
Two of Wands 6436 [1267, 1292, 1314, 1273, 1290]
Three of Wands 6477 [1312, 1261, 1301, 1304, 1299]
Four of Wands 6482 [1295, 1334, 1304, 1324, 1225]
Five of Wands 6622 [1336, 1319, 1275, 1335, 1357]
Six of Wands 6422 [1325, 1287, 1265, 1289, 1256]
Seven of Wands 6545 [1247, 1338, 1349, 1293, 1318]
Eight of Wands 6423 [1330, 1249, 1287, 1252, 1305]
Nine of Wands 6382 [1257, 1263, 1264, 1280, 1318]
Ten of Wands 6550 [1288, 1318, 1317, 1293, 1334]
Page of Wands 6469 [1325, 1285, 1243, 1252, 1364]
Knight of Wands 6512 [1296, 1210, 1313, 1386, 1307]
Queen of Wands 6509 [1296, 1357, 1337, 1268, 1251]
King of Wands 6450 [1256, 1327, 1317, 1288, 1262]
Ace of Pentacles 6504 [1322, 1282, 1295, 1297, 1308]
Two of Pentacles 6443 [1254, 1267, 1295, 1344, 1283]
Three of Pentacles 6503 [1328, 1191, 1296, 1368, 1320]
Four of Pentacles 6522 [1335, 1282, 1296, 1324, 1285]
Five of Pentacles 6528 [1328, 1284, 1305, 1311, 1300]
Six of Pentacles 6495 [1258, 1343, 1293, 1326, 1275]
Seven of Pentacles 6564 [1347, 1372, 1266, 1302, 1277]
Eight of Pentacles 6536 [1355, 1283, 1310, 1288, 1300]
Nine of Pentacles 6605 [1317, 1349, 1308, 1308, 1323]
Ten of Pentacles 6511 [1226, 1401, 1287, 1294, 1303]
Page of Pentacles 6601 [1353, 1332, 1292, 1293, 1331]
Knight of Pentacles 6461 [1310, 1310, 1248, 1276, 1317]
Queen of Pentacles 6403 [1246, 1295, 1291, 1272, 1299]
King of Pentacles 6523 [1327, 1268, 1328, 1321, 1279]
Ace of Cups 6489 [1324, 1283, 1296, 1299, 1287]
Two of Cups 6508 [1315, 1280, 1245, 1345, 1323]
Three of Cups 6554 [1266, 1323, 1373, 1333, 1259]
Four of Cups 6566 [1264, 1377, 1309, 1291, 1325]
Five of Cups 6602 [1259, 1281, 1353, 1405, 1304]
Six of Cups 6449 [1367, 1221, 1283, 1284, 1294]
Seven of Cups 6556 [1274, 1326, 1350, 1273, 1333]
Eight of Cups 6530 [1292, 1323, 1306, 1322, 1287]
Nine of Cups 6507 [1284, 1332, 1330, 1240, 1321]
Ten of Cups 6320 [1312, 1275, 1218, 1257, 1258]
Page of Cups 6527 [1320, 1273, 1272, 1321, 1341]
Knight of Cups 6594 [1272, 1350, 1322, 1385, 1265]
Queen of Cups 6480 [1245, 1356, 1286, 1278, 1315]
King of Cups 6452 [1275, 1295, 1280, 1249, 1353]
Ace of Swords 6464 [1331, 1329, 1232, 1297, 1275]
Two of Swords 6402 [1318, 1283, 1261, 1313, 1227]
Three of Swords 6462 [1291, 1277, 1270, 1331, 1293]
Four of Swords 6447 [1299, 1264, 1257, 1297, 1330]
Five of Swords 6423 [1311, 1285, 1255, 1296, 1276]
Six of Swords 6560 [1266, 1345, 1376, 1270, 1303]
Seven of Swords 6479 [1322, 1322, 1298, 1239, 1298]
Eight of Swords 6542 [1427, 1235, 1303, 1300, 1277]
Nine of Swords 6345 [1283, 1275, 1320, 1248, 1219]
Ten of Swords 6406 [1287, 1233, 1293, 1291, 1302]
Page of Swords 6530 [1340, 1251, 1359, 1245, 1335]
Knight of Swords 6545 [1338, 1352, 1293, 1267, 1295]
Queen of Swords 6559 [1330, 1311, 1269, 1321, 1328]
King of Swords 6419 [1252, 1287, 1312, 1251, 1317]
This is the code I used:
import random
cards =[['0 - The Fool ',[]],
['I - The Magician or Juggler ',[]],
['II - The High Priestess ',[]],
['III - The Empress ',[]],
['IV - The Emperor ',[]],
['V - The Hierophant or Pope ',[]],
['VI - The Lovers ',[]],
['VII - The Chariot ',[]],
['VIII - Strength ',[]],
['IX - The Hermit ',[]],
['X - Wheel of Fortune ',[]],
['XI - Justice ',[]],
['XIII - Death ',[]],
['XIV - Temperance ',[]],
['XV - The Devil ',[]],
['XVI - The Tower ',[]],
['XVII - The Star ',[]],
['XVIII - The Moon ',[]],
['XIX - The Sun ',[]],
['XX - Judgement ',[]],
['XXI - The World ',[]],
['Ace of Wands ',[]],
['Two of Wands ',[]],
['Three of Wands ',[]],
['Four of Wands ',[]],
['Five of Wands ',[]],
['Six of Wands ',[]],
['Seven of Wands ',[]],
['Eight of Wands ',[]],
['Nine of Wands ',[]],
['Ten of Wands ',[]],
['Page of Wands ',[]],
['Knight of Wands ',[]],
['Queen of Wands ',[]],
['King of Wands ',[]],
['Ace of Pentacles ',[]],
['Two of Pentacles ',[]],
['Three of Pentacles ',[]],
['Four of Pentacles ',[]],
['Five of Pentacles ',[]],
['Six of Pentacles ',[]],
['Seven of Pentacles ',[]],
['Eight of Pentacles ',[]],
['Nine of Pentacles ',[]],
['Ten of Pentacles ',[]],
['Page of Pentacles ',[]],
['Knight of Pentacles ',[]],
['Queen of Pentacles ',[]],
['King of Pentacles ',[]],
['Ace of Cups ',[]],
['Two of Cups ',[]],
['Three of Cups ',[]],
['Four of Cups ',[]],
['Five of Cups ',[]],
['Six of Cups ',[]],
['Seven of Cups ',[]],
['Eight of Cups ',[]],
['Nine of Cups ',[]],
['Ten of Cups ',[]],
['Page of Cups ',[]],
['Knight of Cups ',[]],
['Queen of Cups ',[]],
['King of Cups ',[]],
['Ace of Swords ',[]],
['Two of Swords ',[]],
['Three of Swords ',[]],
['Four of Swords ',[]],
['Five of Swords ',[]],
['Six of Swords ',[]],
['Seven of Swords ',[]],
['Eight of Swords ',[]],
['Nine of Swords ',[]],
['Ten of Swords ',[]],
['Page of Swords ',[]],
['Knight of Swords ',[]],
['Queen of Swords ',[]],
['King of Swords ',[]]]
for i in range(100000):
pick1 = random.randrange(0,77)
cards[pick1][1] = cards[pick1][1] + [1]
pick2 = random.randrange(0,77)
while pick2 == pick1:
pick2 = random.randrange(0,77)
cards[pick2][1] = cards[pick2][1] + [2]
pick3 = random.randrange(0,77)
while pick3 == pick2 or pick3 == pick1:
pick3 = random.randrange(0,77)
cards[pick3][1] = cards[pick3][1] + [3]
pick4 = random.randrange(0,77)
while pick4 == pick3 or pick4 == pick2 or pick4 == pick1:
pick4 = random.randrange(0,77)
cards[pick4][1] = cards[pick4][1] + [4]
pick5 = random.randrange(0,77)
while pick5 == pick4 or pick5 == pick3 or pick5 == pick2 or pick5 ==pick1:
pick5 = random.randrange(0,77)
cards[pick5][1] = cards[pick5][1] + [5]
one=0
two=0
three=0
four=0
five=0
count = 0
for i in cards:
one = i[1].count(1)
two = i[1].count(2)
three = i[1].count(3)
four = i[1].count(4)
five = i[1].count(5)
cards[count] = [i[0],i[1],[one,two,three,four,five]]
count=count+1
for i in cards:
print i[0], len(i[1]), i[2]