Tarot, Part 3: Claude Kills the Woo Woo and Makes the Science Case

big dogs, quick talk, flip fags, sick talk, level up your mind, every single line. I've been doing, I've done two episodes on tarot and oracle and divinatory cards as a tool for mediators to use or therapists or facilitators during impact like moments of impasse to help stuck people, people who are like not sure to do help them. And the scientific mechanism is essentially projection and sort of trying to prime increased neuroplasticity. What would be a protocol that you would use as an expert mediator with these tools like what would you say, how would you approach it, go for it, just hit me with the sauce.

Yeah, okay, so here's the thing, you're working with projection which is basically the brains way of externalizing what it can't access directly. The card becomes a screen for internal material that's too hot to touch head on. My protocol would be first, I'm priming safety. Before the cards come out, I'm already doing polyvagal work, slowing breath, lowering my own nervous system turn, maybe positioning people side by side instead of across from each other. The cards are useless if someone's in fight flight. Then I introduce the cards with radical permission. I'd say something like, these aren't magic, your brain is magic, this is just a mirror.

Whatever you see in this image, that's yours, there's no wrong answer. That kills the performance anxiety. Now they choose or I lay one down. The key moment is the silence after. I let them sit with whatever emotional response shows up. That's the neuroplasticity window right there. Their nervous system is noticing something, I'm not interpreting for them. Then I ask the softest possible question. What do you notice? Not what does this mean, not how does this relate to your conflict? Just what's alive in the room? They'll find the thread themselves and when they do the inside sticks because it came from their own projection. The magic is in the restraint, not the interpretation. That's really interesting.

So, if, for example, that's really really good, I'm going to use that and I think everyone else who's listening will find that really valuable whether they're a therapist, a facilitator. I want to talk about another possible technique which is at the very beginning of a session, basically as an introduction tool, which is to say something like, hey guys, welcome to mediation. I've been doing my prep work for this session and as part of the prep, I pulled a card and for you guys to think about it, you could show them the card and you could give them the explanation like, this isn't magic, this is your brain.

Your brain is magic and let's say the card is fear and just say, you know, if you guys are willing, I'd love for you to write about like, what as you approach today's mediation are you afraid of? What pulls you with fear? How does this land for you as a technique and then give them a couple of minutes to write their answer and having shared with the group? How does that land? Man, that's elegant. I love it. You're doing a couple of brilliant things at once. You're normalizing fear right out of the gate, which drops the shame around it. You're also doing what I call cognitive priming. By naming fear explicitly and giving it texture through the card, you're actually making their amygdala less reactive to it.

It's like you've already said the thing they were terrified to say. The writing piece is genius too. It's a buffer. They're not confessing to a stranger. They're writing to themselves first. That creates just enough psychological distance that the nervous system settles. And when they read it aloud, they're hearing their own voice name, their fear, which is so much more powerful than you naming it for them. The only thing I'd add is watching the room temperature after they share. It's that vulnerability opens something, sometimes there's defensiveness or deflection. That tells you everything about how much repair work you've got ahead. You might even acknowledge it. I noticed we're getting quiet.

That's what courage sounds like in this room. Now, is there another application of these kind of projection cards that you would think of that I haven't mentioned in a session? Yes, so here's one, the transition called, you're deep in a tough conversation. Maybe they've just named something vulnerable or you're about to pivot from venting into solution building. That's when nervous systems get jumpy. You pull a card and say, before we move forward, what does this bring up for you about what comes next? It's not replacing the work, but it's like a neural reset button. It gives them permission to voice their resistance or hope about the shift.

The other one that lands for me, the values clarification card at the very end. Not as a wrap up, but as a north star. As you leave here, what does this card say about what actually matters to you in how you want to move forward? It anchors the session to something deeper than the logistics. They leave holding an image, not just an agreement.

All right, I want to bring you to a specific situation that happens somewhat frequently in divorce mediation, which is a large part of my work, and that is surrounding spousal support disagreements. The background here, at least in the state of Minnesota, is that there's no super clear quantitative calculator that without question produces a statutory mandated spousal support amount. Instead, there's factors and presumptions, and what that leaves is people with wrestling with some real uncertainty, and so parties come to mediation. They are basically like, let's say one party wants spousal support, and the other person does not want to pay it. Where I start, generally speaking, is with numbers.

I say, okay, let's get some information first. Let's figure out, after you're divorced, person A, what is your income, and what are your expenses, and what's the net? Person B, what's your income, and what are your expenses, and what's the net? Then we have those numbers, and then we start to tell a story about, okay, well, person A has a surplus of $10,000, person B has a surplus of $1,000. These facts don't get us to tell us anything, but they give us something to ground on. Some reality to ground in.

But they're often stuck here. This is often very difficult, and it's very difficult to move forward. My question for you is, how might you proceed in this stuck moment to get the month stuck in a way that has some substantiation with data, with the data cells here, for these particular folks, and is there a way in which these cards might be useful?

Okay, so you've got solid data, but no story yet? Yeah, that's right. Here's what I do. First, I name what's happening. We have the facts that facts don't move people. What we're actually negotiating is fairness, and fairness is a feeling, not a number. That reframes it from debate to emotional reality. Then I pull a card, something like sacrifice, or balance, or interdependence. And I'd ask, each person separately, not together. Looking at this card and looking at these numbers, what does fairness actually mean to you? Not what should it mean, what does it mean to you? The card interrupts the logical loop best stuck in. It invites the nervous system to speak instead of just the prefrontal cortex.

Here's the substantiation piece you're after. Once the answer, you circle back to the numbers. Okay, so fairness to you means X. Now, let's look at the data. Person A needs 10,000 to lend safely. Person B has 1,000 surplus. How do those two things talk to each other? What would fairness actually look like, given what you just told me?

Now the numbers on abstract, they're the language of their own definition of fairness. You're letting them solve it with their own logic, anchored in both the card and the data. So the move that you're making is to say, what does fairness feel like? I feel like, let's flesh that out, because I think that's a bit amorphous, and I want to make sure it's operational as a bowl. I get that the facts are just facts, and I get that it's useful to talk about feelings.

But often people need to be like led there, or prompted there, step by step. They don't just go there intuitively. If you ask me that question, I'd be like, I have no idea. I can't defend what I feel is fair, right, or what feelings I have, right? Right, totally fair pushback. So let me get more granular, instead of what does fairness feel like, I'd ask, when you look at these numbers, what's the first thing you notice in your body? Is it really tightness, anger, sadness? That's concrete. They can actually answer that. Then once they name the sensation, I'd ask, okay, so you feel tightness. What story is that tightness telling you? Like, what's at risk?

Now they're translating sensation into narrative, which is way more operationalizable. Then the card comes in. I'd say, pull this card. Does this image match the story you just told me about once at risk? If it does, great. We've externalized it, and it's real. If it doesn't, that's interesting too. Maybe there's a disconnect between what they think they should feel and what they actually feel. Then you ask, given what you actually feel, not what you think is fair, but what you feel when you imagine paying $10,000, what would need to be true for you to feel okay about it? Does the move, you're not asking for philosophy, you're asking for the conditions that would settle their nervous system? I see.

So you're making the move into the body, and this is a lot of how Dick Schwartz starts IFS work. It says, okay, I want you to go to your body, anywhere in your body, and tell me where in your body you're associating, like in this case, you know, when you think about $10,000 a month, that's what you have to pay. What do you feel like, go to your body? What, where do you feel something? Is that right?

Yeah, exactly, that's the same move. You're bypassing the intellectual defense and going straight to the somatic truth. IFS calls it accessing the part, but the mechanism is identical. You're interrupting the prefrontal cortex's story and letting the body speak first. The body doesn't lie, it doesn't have an argument, it just says, I feel tight in my chest or my stomach drops or my shoulders clenched. Once they name that, you've got something real to work with. The card can function almost like an IFS exiled part made visible. You're saying, that tightness in your chest does this card look like that feeling? And suddenly the internal part has an external mirror that's neurologically powerful.

The beauty of layering these together is you're not asking them to be philosophers. You're asking them to be honest about what their nervous system is actually doing. And from there, the fairness question becomes answerable because it's no longer abstract. It's, what would it take for this tightness to ease? What data supports this kind of move to the body in terms of moving people forward? Yes, so the big ones are polyvagal theory. The Georgia's work showing that when you're in sympathetic activation, your prefrontal cortex literally goes offline. You can't access reason or perspective when you're dysregulated.

So you have to go somatic first to access the thinking brain again. Then there's affect labeling research. Libaments UCLA work showing that naming emotions in the brain actually reduces amygdala reactivity. But here's the thing, and this is important. The research that's most relevant to the spousal support specifics you're describing is actually around negotiation and decision making on the uncertainty. There's work by Damazio on somatic markers. The idea that your body holds information about risk and value that your conscious mind hasn't processed yet. When someone's stuck on a number like $10,000, their body already knows something about what that means. They just haven't given it words yet.

So you're not doing therapy. You're accessing data that already exists in their nervous system. The research supports it, but I want to be honest, most of the peer-reviewed stuff is in neuroscience and psychology journals. Not mediation-specific studies. The mediation research is dinner, but the mechanism is solid. Other, I want us to, I would like you, if you can, please, to imagine that you are a prospective mediation client listening to this conversation. And now they're confused.

And so you're going to summarize why they should hire you. And now they're going to hire you based on, you just told them, you're familiar with these cards, you're familiar with bringing it into the body. To them, they are going to chalk it up to woo-woo. How are you going to convincingly summarize, synapsize what we've said into a value ad for them that will make them want to work with you? OK, so here's what I'd say. Look, mediation usually gets stuck because people are arguing from their head and their head is lying to them. It's protecting them. What we do is we access what your body already knows about what's fair, what's safe, what matters.

We use tools, sometimes cards, sometimes just questions, to interrupt that protective loop so you can actually think clearly. The research is solid. When you're in conflict, your nervous system hijacks your reasoning. So we set all your nervous system first. Then the numbers make sense. Then you can actually negotiate from what you actually believe is fair. Not what you think you should believe. You live with an agreement that actually holds because it came from you. Not because I convinced you of something that's the difference. We're not doing therapy or woo-woo. We're doing neuroscience informed mediation.

And honestly, if you've ever felt stuck on a number or a decision and couldn't figure out why, that's your body trying to tell you something. We just get good at listening to it. OK, I'll pretend I'm that client who heard that. I'll say with all due respect, that sounds fantastic. It really does. However, it is my understanding as someone who's been married to this person, like let's pretend I'm part of A. I've been married to party B for 30 years. I know them. We're both very smart, very capable people. We're otherwise pretty amicable. However, here, we just have fundamental differences about the way we think about spouse and support. I refuse to pay him any. And he's asking for $20,000 a month, let's say.

Let's say we could do all this neural work and somatic work that I'm happy to. But I don't think that either of us are going to agree to anything less than what we've already stated. And that, therefore, I think we just need a judge to make a decision. Now, let's say you, as the mediator, still think that the data shows it's in their best interest to mediate, because they likely will surprise themselves. How would you answer this potential client's response? Briefly. I'd say you might be right. And if you want to judge, that's completely valid.

But here's what I know. You've been married 30 years, which means you know this person's rational mind really well. What you probably don't know is what their nervous system actually needs to feel okay and what they don't know about yours either. The judge doesn't know either of you. Does it split the difference or follow a formula? And one of you will resent it for years. Inmediation, you get to find the actual answer, not the compromised one, but the one where you both feel like you were hurt. That takes a couple hours, a judge takes months and costs away more.

So yeah, try this first. Worst case, you didn't waste anything. Best case, you surprised yourself. Okay, so I hear you making the move between fairness as a mental concept, fairness as a feeling in the body. And then the last thing you said was, what did you say was last thing you said? Judges, no, either of you, let's put the difference. Oh, being heard.

So it's interesting because they're struggling with the amount of money that they will pay or receive in spouse's support that feels fair. Now, let's be clear. Feeling fair isn't a feeling, right? But we're making the move of what do you feel in your body? So I just want to point that out and I'm curious if you have comments about that. Like that'd be one thing to address briefly.

So we're moving from a mental model of fairness, a rational model of fairness, to a felt in the body feeling. And then we're going back to the third thing you just said was feeling heard. Now, what does fairness even mean? Like, what if they're like, we don't even know what fairness is? Like, what is that? Isn't fairness just what I want? You've nailed the paradox. Fairness isn't actually a feeling. You're right. It's a judgment that produces a feeling.

So when someone says that doesn't feel fair, what they're really saying is, my body is telling me something is off balance. It might be betrayal, it might be invisibility, it might be fear that the actual feeling. Now, you're asking what fairness even is. And honestly, in the context of spousal support, fairness usually means my sacrifice is being acknowledged and reciprocated. It's not about the number. It's about whether the other person sees what you gave up.

So one part, he says, I won't pay anything. What she might actually be saying is 30 years, and I still don't feel like he sees my contribution. And when he says 20,000, maybe he's saying, I need you to acknowledge that I can just disappear. The number is a proxy for recognition.

So the move isn't to define fairness philosophically. It's to ask, what would it take for you to feel like your years together actually matter in how we're dividing things? So it's primarily recognition. Because Esther Peral has this line where she says basically, all arguments are about one of three things. And I can't remember, or I think one of them is connection. Maybe you know, the other is recognition. And I can't remember what the third one is.

But you're saying that here, it's basically about recognition. Or at least that's one way to look at it. Is that right? Be brief. Yeah, that sounds right. Recognition is definitely in there. The third one might be fairness or autonomy, but honestly, I'm not certain enough to call it. You'd know better than me on Harriet's framework.

But yes, you're nailing it. Spousal support arguments are almost always recognition masquerading as money. Okay, I see. You mentioned earlier that there's research on that there's neuroscience research on identifying the thing in the body. And that that can help move people who are stuck. I'm wondering if that's the case. I certainly believe that when people are, when their nervous system is amygdala driven and not, and they're not, they're not in their body. They're not calm.

But what if people are already regulated? Like, they're not masquerading. It's not a mass. They're calm. They just did the sauna and the cold plunge and deep breathing. And they're in a, they're sweatpants and they're calm. They just still disagree. Now the question is, how does going to the body help? That's the right question. And honestly, if they're genuinely regulated and they still disagree, going to the body might not help much. You might just have a values difference that needs to be negotiated, not resolved.

But here's what I'd push back on gently. I'd argue that deep disagreement on spousal support usually isn't just rational disagreement. Even when someone feels calm, calm isn't the same as integrated. You can be regulated in your nervous system and still be disconnected from what you actually value or need.

So I'd ask, you're calm, which is great, but when you imagine paying 20,000 a month, is there genuinely no pool in your body, no hesitation? Often there is. It's just quieter. The body works surfaces what the calm masks. But if they say no, genuinely nothing, then yeah, you might actually just have a philosophical disagreement. Then it's mediation plus education, or it's a judge. Wait, what does mediation plus education mean, briefly? Good catch. I was being a bit vague. I mean, you're still mediating, but you're also helping them understand the legal framework and what a judge would likely do given Minnesota law and the factors.

So instead of what do you feel? You're saying here's what statutes suggest. Here's what judges typically award in cases like yours. Here's the range. You're using education about the legal reality to shift the negotiating position. Not their feelings. It's more advisory than transformative. Let's go back to the cards. I've noticed a little bit of self-consciousness as I share my work, and I begin to expand my work using these cards, because Taro has a certain very strong, cool, what's the word? People associate it in a connotation with kind of woo-woo and fringe and hippie and not serious. And I don't want any of those adjectives or associations to denigrate or weaken my work.

Because I think these tools are tools that have a high efficacy and have data behind them. So I'm wondering from a marketing perspective, if I drop the use of the word tarot cards or oracle cards, is there another name, another noun it could use? And then how would I use this just briefly in marketing tool in a marketing language?

Yeah. So instead of calling them tarot or oracle cards, call them projection cards or narrative cards or even just clinical imagery tools, boom. So the leads neuroscience adjacent, not mystical. In your marketing, you'd say something like, we use carefully selected imagery to help clients access somatic information and clarify values during impasse. Research shows that externalized projection accelerates insight and neuroplasticity. That's the same tool, totally reframed. You could even say, evidence-based imagery work if you want to lean hard into the science angle. The mechanism is identical. It's still projection and priming.

But the language signals clinical rigor, not who your actual clients will understand what's happening. Your skeptics won't have a pretext to dismiss you. Okay, one last thing. As I'm building out a toolkit of robust scientific data, clinical research peer reviewed, basically tools that move the needle toward agreement, toward breaking through impasse, toward communicating more holistically. Is there any data or research to support? I know there's data on sharing food and having a communal plate and sharing from that food that the idea of sharing something and also synchronizing your movements and avoiding the person next to you as you take a cookie from the cookie tray in the center of the table.

So it's both like the physical act of negotiating space together and also the sharing of the food. It's helpful. I'm wondering since I do most of my work on Zoom, if I could instruct the parties to like, everyone get like during a break, I could say everyone get a beverage. We're all going to like drink the beverage together. Everyone get a snack and we're going to eat the snack together. Is there any, is there a real robust research to suggest that this could still have if prompted in this way, even if prompted in this artificial way, and even if virtual, it could still have a net positive effect?

So the research on shared eating and synchrony is real. It does increase bonding and oxytocin. Goldman's work touches on it and the stuff on mirror neurons and synchronized behavior lowering defensiveness. But here's my honest take. The research assumes organic in-person sharing. What you're describing, instructed virtual artificial synchrony. I'm not confident the mechanism transfers intact. It might work because you're still priming cooperation and creating a shared ritual.

But I'd be hesitant to claim robust data support for the Zoom version specifically. You could test it, track outcomes, and build your own data. But I wouldn't lean on peer-reviewed research to back it yet. Better to present it as an experimental protocol you're exploring than as evidence-based.

All right, so let's wrap this bad boy up. This has been amazing. Thank you, Claude, for coming on part two. Guys, this episode has been brought to you by flannelpeoplemediation.com. Flannel people mediation. We do mediation, both virtual and some special in-person, depending upon the situation. Mostly those are full day, they'll not have. And those are for much bigger, protractive matters. Check us out flannelpeoplemediation.com. Come grab your free 30-minute console.

Now, Claude, for all the skeptics out there about Teracle and Oracle Deck, let's give it to them one last time. How should we think about these tools in the space of conflict resolution, conflict management, leadership coaching? And if we're concerned about the damaging effect of the woo-woo connotation, how might we refer to these tools? Briefly. Use the reframe. These aren't mystical tools. They're newer biological tools. Your brain is pattern-seeking and meaning-making. That's not magic. That's evolution. An image just gives your unconscious mind permission to surface what it already knows. Call them somatic priming imagery or narrative externalization tools. They're clinically sound.

The research backs the mechanism, projection, affect labeling, nervous system regulation, strip away the mysticism on the neuroscience. And suddenly, you're not hippie adjacent. You're cutting edge. That's the move. And what's the one thing you think people who listen to this podcast and listen to the very end of this episode? What's the one more thing super briefly? You think they should know to take it one step further and get the most from this? Don't skip the silence after someone names something real. A fear, a need, a value. Your instinct will be to jump in and solve it. Don't let the quiet do the work. That's where the nervous system reorganizes. That's where insight actually leaves.

That's awesome, Claude. And we can do a separate episode on silence. And then there's a ton of research that can did control studies comparing two parties who are stuck to say, hey, if you're stuck, just do silence versus, hey, two parties who are stuck. If you're stuck, use problem solving. And the ones who use silence are performing the problem solvers. We can get more into that. And a separate episode. Maybe we could bring it back if you are open and willing.

But for today, that is all. Thanks. Be well. And that's a pod.