DIVINATION CLUB: Term XXI, Activity 7: Cold Readings vs The Noble Art of Divination

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Every year, this squabble seems to happen. Somebody throws a tantrum, fed up of not being able to see anything, or seeing shapes in tea-leaves only to be shot down for saying something. The whole class pipes up about how it's a waste of time, until somebody points out what has correctly been predicted over the course of the year. It seems Trelawney has a special way of dealing with this: she opens a fresh pack of greenish joss sticks and lights them; the thick mossy smoke makes everybody go mellow and thick-headed, and she smiles at the renewed optimism.

Activity: Cold Readings vs The Noble Art of Divination
Points: Long debate: Participation 10pts, Additional comment: 2pts.
Deadline: 20th December @ 11:59PM UTC.
Details: Do you believe there is a difference between the Divination presented in the HP series, and those techniques applied by Muggles in the real world? Could you or I walk into a class and be on equal footing with those at Hogwarts? Do Wizarding folk simply have greater sensitivity to the paranormal workings of the universe? Debate and discuss.


Okay! Seeing as people seemed to enjoy the Hogsmeade debate, we're going to have another one (before I forget). So here's the point of discussion:

Is wizarding Divination any different from Muggle fortune telling?

Note that this question is NOT asking if you think Muggle fortune telling is a sham or not: that's a completely different issue. If possible, let's try to keep things on track!

I would like you to consider whether there's any real differences between our brand of fortune telling, and the one depicted in the books. Do you think a Muggle could teach the kids as well as Trelawney? Did the predictions that came true in the novels happen because of Divination's magic, or was it just dumb, serendipitous luck? Are both types just cold readings manifested in different ways? Feel free to cite things from canon as much as from your own point of view!

A substantial opening comment is worth 10 points. Follow-on elaborated responses are worth 2 points each, so long as they're a bit more meaty than "I agree/disagree". Cap of 30 points total.

Make Hermione proud, guys! Or Trelawney. Or Firenze. Whichever.


_{The future will look bleak if you forget to sign the ROSTER}

Comments

Questions? Quandries? Quijibo?

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

I'm running out of decent Q words. :(

[pinksonia.livejournal.com]

In general, I think that successful divination is more a question of having “the gift” (for lack of a better word) rather than something that can be taught. Therefore, I would say that a Muggle divination teacher would be just as effective as a magical one. The students either have the ability or they do not. Divination lessons should focus on introducing different techniques so able students may find the method most suited to them as well as things like breathing and relaxation techniques which may help stimulate prophesy. None of these lessons would be inherently outside the ability of a Muggle well versed in divination.

The only barrier to a Muggle divination teacher would therefore be the possibility that the ability to tell the future is inherently magic bases. If there are no Muggles well versed in divination (ie. people who tell the future have some sort of latent magical ability and are therefore not truly Muggles. Maybe Squibs?), then the question would become moot. Though I suppose even in that case, a true Muggle would be able to teach theory, which is all a divination class would really be based on anyway, they would just have possible difficulty resulting from a lack of respect from their students due to their inability to “practice what they preach.” That would, of course, go just as much for a Wizard teach who did not actually have any divination ability.

Allison//Ravenclaw

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Oooh, that's a pretty cool concept. I'm not very well-versed in my Squib theories, but I have come across some writings that said they still were magical folks, just that their magic did not always manifest the same way. I wonder if some of them could manifest magic via the gift of sight.

Evy//Ravenclaw//2

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree that divination requires a gift for it and that a gifted Muggle would be just as successful as a gifted wizard/witch. And I agree that students should be introduced to different kinds of fortune telling/divination. It seems that having two Divination teachers at Hogwarts should be something usual. For example Trelawney could teach those with gift while Firezne instead took those without the gift and taught them reading cards/runes/planets.

Lena/Gryffindor/1

[narianha.livejournal.com]

But would you rather have an art teacher who was familiar with artists and art styles throughout history and could teach you all the things associated with the craft and make it interesting, or someone who was a really amazing sculptor but had no knowledge of famous painters? Talent isn't necessarily a qualifier for being an instructor.

Rita//Slytherin//4

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I agree in that I think having the "gift" is part of it. You can try to set a foundation but there do seem to be more people who just have a knack for it than people who don't. But most of the methods seem to me to be based on some strong theories still--palm reading, tarot, tea leaves, etc. I guess the talent is based on one person's knack for knowing what the patterns mean?

Evy//Ravenclaw//1

[narianha.livejournal.com]

I don't think that being magical necessarily makes you more intuitive...it seems like there are plenty of students at Hogwarts that aren't very intuitive at all. Some are downright thick, like Crabbe and Goyle. It seems as though magical students have about the same range of natural ability (outside of magic) as non-magical students.

Rita//Slytherin//7

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I can see the argument for being predisposed to Divination because of being magical, actually. And I mean, there definitely has to be a reason behind it being included as part of Hogwarts' curriculum whereas Muggles don't. I think the fact that it IS part of the curriculum validates it as something students there CAN learn.

Evy//Ravenclaw//3

[canarycream.livejournal.com]

Given Ron, Hermione, et al's lack of success in the field, I was under the impression that Divination was a waste of time for anyone who wasn't at least a partial Seer... I guess then that someone who was magically sensitive to the future for whatever reason (centaur blood? :S) might be adept at it, but, in general, wizarding-kind isn't very prophetic. That is, just being magical isn't necessarily indicative of skill in Divination. I wonder then if, in the wizarding world, Seeing is an ability outside of magic but one that simply tends to be more common amongst magical folk - that is, maybe legitimate Muggle Seers might exist as well? If that were the case, I suppose then that a Muggle might be able to instruct another Seer just as well as a magical one would.

Mari-Linn // Slytherin // I hope this is long enough?

[narianha.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it did seem like there were times that it could have been useful. And, some of the students got something out of it, like Lavender and Parvati. I mean, obviously Ron, Harry and Hermione didn't take it seriously so we don't really get a good impression of the class.

Rita//Slytherin//3

[slumber.livejournal.com]

What's interesting to me is that the way wizards viewed Divination was still pretty much the way Muggles normally view it too. It kind of DOES bring into question what its role in Hogwarts is, to a certain degree. But then again the way Divination (and Trelawney) is portrayed in the books does it little justice, I feel, considering that the entire series would not have taken place had it not been for Trelawney's (accurate) prediction to begin with.

Evy//Ravenclaw//4

[astrophelind.livejournal.com]

I agree. I always thought divination in the HP world was something that was best left to a seer, and being a seer to me was like being a parseltongue, or a metamorphmagus. You either were, or you weren't. Being a witch or wizard wasn't always enough to qualify, and if you weren't, then there wasn't much point in trying to be one.

Muggle seers is an entirely plausible concept, but would they be classified as seers by magical folk? Professor McGonagall said that true seers were extremely rare. Just like metamorphmaguses (god does that word even exist?!).
However, if we're to take what McGonagall said as truth, how does one explain the volume of prophecies in the Hall of Prophecy?

Ria/Slytherin/2

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

Okay, prepare yourself for a tl;dr.

The difference between fortune telling and divination is a very basic one. In fortune telling, as practised by us Muggles, it is the cards/runes that tell the future and the person who reads them simply translates them in a way which can be understood by others. Divination, on the other hand, requires some kind of gift - an open mind, intuition, inner eye, whatever have you. In divination, the person with gift sees the future or is a conduit for 'force' which sees the future. Then, there are seers and prophets who are, for the lack of better words, vessels for some kind of unknown force which is able to tell the future.

Look at it this way: Trelawney couldn't divine your future for the life of her. However, when she was reading cards (book 6, anyone?), she was able to see what could happen. In this instance it was the cards that held the future. On the other hand, when she gave the prophecies before the books started and in book 3, she was a vessel for something which had the access to future. Let me reiterate here: she wasn't divining. She was a vessel, a seer or a prophetess, what have you, but it was an outside 'force' which allowed her to make the prophecies.

Another difference between fortune telling and divination. Fortune telling is more like giving guidelines of what can happen. Divination, on the other hand (along with prophecies) tells us about something that will definitely happen, something that is set in stone, so to speak.

To illustrate my point: I read (or rather used to read) Tarot cards. Many people for whom I read later told me most of things I told them came true. But that doesn't mean I know what will happen in the future; I simply passed along the message I read in the cards.

Do I think a Muggle would be able to teach kids divination? Well, that would depend if the Muggle had an inner eye, open senses, whatever you call it. I have to say, that for divination, you certainly have to have a gift, which is why I think it should only be taught to those who show an ability for it. The rest of kids should be taught fortune telling instead. Tarot, runes, things like that which do not require a gift but which instead require someone who can read them. And n this case even Hermione would be able to do it because there's not hidden tricks to it. You just need to learn the meaning of cards/runes and be able to contextualise them.

And we need to remember this: fortune telling is often validated by hindsight. Prophecies, on the other hand, are something that needs to be unravelled.

Lena/Gryffindor

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure it can be said that the classes with Trelawney were Divination, to be honest. I think it was more of a Fortune Telling 101. To me, Divination means having some sort of an aptitude for it and most of Trelawney's students didn't posses it. It was sad to see Divination portrayed as mumbo-jumbo and a 'slacker' class with only 'silly girls' (Parvati and Lavender) interested in it. Harry Potter world has magic, so I kind of expected that there would be more importance placed on the ability to tell the future etc. and that a class in Hogwarts would be more substantial. After all, we are told Hogwarts is one of the best Wizarding schools so it was really distressing to see just how much of a joke Divination classes were.

I don't believe you can teach people about finding their inner eye if they don't have an inkling of a gift. IT is a very rare ability so obviously not many people would have a need for Divination classes.

Lena | Gryffindor | 4

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

Well, to me fortune telling is more of a BS. You know, fortune cookies, reading the wax, that kind of thing. It's a very general thing. Eg. beware the dark stranger can mean a dark haired person or dark skinned person or just a person wearing dark clothes, etc, etc.

Divination/prophecy is more tangible. It will definitely happen. Take the Harry/Voldie prophecy. It was said in a wishy washy way and yet it gave substantial details: couple who defied him three times, a child born at the end of July, marking as an equal, power he knows not. We might have speculated about the power, not knowing what it was, but over all the prophecy was more straightforward? I'm not exactly sure how to differentiate it more.

Divination/prophecy = will happen fo' sho. Fortune telling = not really, maybe, depends on how you contextualise it.

Lena | Gryffindor | 2

[narianha.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I think that Divination class was still all about the ritual being what tells the future, and the students were just translating the symbols. It was all dream interpretation, tea leaves, crystal balls and astrology. It didn't seem as though they were directly seeing the future.

Rita//Slytherin//1

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

Well, that's kind of my point. The class shouldn't have been called Divination since they didn't do any divining, they simply read and translated what they saw in cards/runes/tea leaves. It had nothing to do with scrying or even trances, which I believe should be taught as part of Divination.

Lena | Gryffindor | 3

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Ohhhh I love this explanation, especially since it does differentiate and draw lines between Divination and Fortune Telling. Unfortunately most of my comments here so far have been focused on treating them the same way. People can be taught to read the cards, read the tea leaves, interpret dreams, and so on, but there is a difference between that and actually having the Sight.

But what I wonder, and would love your thoughts on: does having the Sight make the readings that much easier/clearer? Does it help manipulate the cards/leaves/etc in such a way that it's a more concrete answer as opposed to what one without the gift might see?

Evy//Ravenclaw//5

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting question to ask! I think that the gift makes the reading much more intuitive, if it makes sense. Sometimes it's difficult to get a reading or 'connect' different meanings cards show but I think the Sight might actually work here as a little insight or a way with interpretation :)

I wouldn't necessarily say that someone with the Sight would have a more concrete or clear answer than someone without it, I think they simply would have an easier time of it ;)

Lena | Gryffindor | 11

[mmailliw.livejournal.com]

I think that Divination as taught by Professor Trelawney is exactly the same as Muggle fortune telling. The tools used seem all Muggle and the results seem completely ineffective... why would a Divination method that completely fails involve magic?

On the other hand, the divination practiced by actual Seers such as Trelawney's trance has got to be different from both classroom Divination and Muggle methods. For one thing, the behavior is very different (and it can't come on command); on the other hand, the results are clear and perfectly effective when in a trance.

The one remaining question is: what about Trelawney's other predictions, which are technically correct but misleading? My guess would be that they come from a small bit of a magical inner eye which has a vague glimpse of what happens but can't get everything. This seems to be what the centaurs teach as well...

William//Slytherin

[narianha.livejournal.com]

But Trelawney's Sight isn't something that can be taught. And, it could be compared (depending on your level of skepticism) to "visions" that mystics have. Either way, I agree that the actual class is more ritual than magic and could be taught by someone with no magical talent.

Rita//Slytherin//2

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

I agree completely. What Trelawney taught was fortune telling, not divination. It seemed really cringe worthy to me how Divination was portrayed in the books.

However, I think that divination as practised by Seers is something more advanced and doesn't really belong in the Hogwarts curriculum.

Lena | Gryffindor | 6

[slumber.livejournal.com]

This is what I think is the issue with Divination--the way it is presented in the books was no different than what it would look like in the Muggle world, thus it was very easy to kind of look it over and dismiss it as some sort of hack job.

Evy//Ravenclaw//6

[narianha.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the majority of wizarding Divination is any different than Muggle fortune telling. It was still all about interpreting the cards/coffee grounds/tea leaves/what have you. There was still astrology, and dream analysis. The Sight is a noticeable difference, but only if you don't believe that there are people in the Muggle world who genuinely have visions. It seemed like there was very little magic involved in the teaching of Divination, the magic was more in the ritual than in the person themselves. It was up to the individual to interpret, but that doesn't really require magic.

Rita//Slytherin

[narianha.livejournal.com]

Yeah I will say that I think that the centaurs connection to the stars seems like something humans couldn't replicate, but it also seems like something that can't be completely taught at Hogwarts either.

Rita//Slytherin//9

[astrophelind.livejournal.com]

It was up to the individual to interpret-.

Exactly this. Because Divination deals with predicting something that hasn't yet occurred, it doesn't have instant results like waving your wand and casting a spell. Essentially you're guessing, alright so you have a couple of cards with pictures to help you along the way, but overall I think both variants -wizarding and muggle- are almost identical.

Ria/Slytherin/1

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

I do agree with you that the Divination from Hogwarts is like fortune telling. I'd even say that it was a tad misleading to call the class Divination.

I don't agree that the magic was in the ritual, though. I believe the magic, in this case, was the sigh, open mid, sixth sense, whatever you call it, and it was definitely in the person. It is something that cannot be taught or passed on, unless you already possess it and are able to cultivate it.

Lena | Gryffindor | 10

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. This was what I was trying to say, only you said it much more clearly. :P It strikes me as quite odd, now, that JKR didn't have a more magical version of Divination, and that its treatment in the series is much the same way Muggles look at Divination.

Evy//Ravenclaw//8

[beautifulbluee.livejournal.com]

I think that wizarding Divination is different than muggle fortune telling. I think that it has a lot to do with magic especially because of how realistic it seems to be. I don't think that a muggle would be able to get away with divination. I'm not bashing on the credibility of muggle fortune telling, because I think going to see one is very interesting, but I think that when it comes to success there's a big difference in the two.

With muggle fortune telling, I think it's more of advice. The person who gets the reading usually takes the results and applies them to his or her life or sees it as advice for the future. It's more of the part of the person getting the reading to make the reading real or correct. Does that make sense or am I babbling? I don't think a wizard would do that. If they get a divination reading, then it must be what's going to happen.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that muggle fortune telling is more in the eye of the beholder and divination is more realistic. Muggles see what they want to see where wizards are more likely to see it how it is. But that's just my opinion.

Lindsay of Hufflepuff

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Interesting points. I like how you pointed out that the desired outcome between Muggle fortune telling and Divination are different--we're looking for advice, wizards are looking for portents. But with the way Divination was handled in the books, it still seemed like they were just making educated guesses based on the patterns in the tea leaves or whatever else they were doing, things that I think Muggles would find easy to try and do.

Do you think having magical abilities makes it easier, then, for wizards to look at the same clump of tea leaves and see more easily what future it paints, where Muggles would look at it and try to bend the future to what they want it to be?

Evy//Ravenclaw//9

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

Wizards might carry the Seer gene but then again, it can be similar to the magic gene, it might just pop up in some families out of the blue. So I think it is quite possible that there are Muggle Seers in the Potterverse, we just don't really know about them. Besides, most of what we know about Muggles doesn't really portray them in a good light, so I doubt JK or anyone else would want to imply that Muggles can have similar skills to Wizards.

Funny thing about Neville smashing that cup. When I read it, it seemed to me like Trelawney 'suggested' Neville that he would drop the cup and he did, because he believed she had the gift to see the future. It seemed like a scam to me, to be honest. Which was quite striking when compared to the card reading she did in book 6, where she read that Dumbledore was in danger.

Lena | Gryffindor | 8

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think if anything, Trelawney could have put in a bit more effort trying to engage students in her lessons, although as Rob pointed out below, on some level if you don't buy into Divination you're just not going to ever ~see~ anything. I think part of what helps people do interpretations is their willingness to form potential narratives, to create meaning out of a set of possible interpretations. Divination in this regard is different than other Hogwarts subjects, then, because how would you appeal to a student who just does not believe you can tell the future?

Evy//Ravenclaw//10

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Coming back to this debate now, I'm really intrigued by the number of people who have brought up Trelawney's Inner Eye. I think it's an interesting point that is somewhat pivotal to the question. It's clear that she did make some prophecies that way. However, it seemed the majority of Trelawney's teaching comes from her own self-belief rather than anything actually mystic. Call it a placebo effect if you like, it's though she is imparting her knowledge onto others.... but the gift of prophecy is personal and unteachable.

To compare with muggle cold readings, a lot of it is built around the mystic deducing things from the querant that aren't said explicitly. To quote an example: someone who is clearly worried by something may be surprised when a fortune teller "knows" they are facing a tough decision, or they have paths ahead of them despite how things feel now. Truth is, ANYONE who is worried likely has to make a big decision; the description could be regarding financial, personal, relationship, career, education, health, family, you name it. It's a big umbrella but is made to look specific by dressing it up properly. I think a lot of HP Divination is about the dress-up, too. The presentation, the setup, the expectation, and maybe on occasion the odd self-fulfilling prophecy, too.

What I find interesting is how Hermione was ejected from the class (well, she stormed out but she knew she wasn't welcome). Was it because she lacked an inner eye? No, it's because she was a cynic and was sceptical from day one. Trelawney knows on some level that if you don't believe in Divination you'll never hope to get a thing from it. I think that's true with Muggle psychics etc, as well.


Rob/Gryffindor

[capeofstorm.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I don't think Trelawney really taught her students that much. From what we saw in the books, her lessons were all about self-grandiose and foreseeing Harry's death. If anything, she should have taught a drama class. Most of the knowledge the students seemed to posses came from books, I believe.

I like the way you described the cold reading. It is, in essence, fortune telling. It's mostly speculation and contextualisation and really vague wording.

Lena | Gryffindor | 7

[slumber.livejournal.com]

It looks like there isn't much of a difference between the way Divination was taught at Hogwarts over how we view it. The only exception, I think, would be the crystal balls. Granted, I don't have much experience with them in real life but I doubt they would actually be misty with visions and show Harry and Ron what lies in their future. I think for the most part, both Trelawney's and Firenze's brands of divination are very familiar to Muggles.

Now that you've brought it up too, it does seem as though Divination is the one thing that's unchanged or unmagicked in the world. Even Muggle Studies has the "Ariel using a fork as a comb" effect where Muggle objects are reimagined from a different perspective, but I have never really thought anything was interesting or different in Divination classes. I guess the reason is because it's already part of the occult in our world.

Evy//Ravenclaw

DEBATE CLOSED!

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Thanks for participating, everyone! Results will go up soonish.