• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sands

  1. Sparrow, love it that there's other people who care to give their opinions in the guide section as that's needed, but please for the love of whatever you consider or don't consider holy, don't post your reviews as cringy conversations. Do whatever conversations you need to do in your head and post a clean review.
  2. I really hate how you take out bits that have a lot of promise like the Change versus Stability part that had some problems but also some solid bits, yet you keep a lot of your personal theorycrafting presented as facts in your guide that just brings the whole thing down. Uguu talking to me about my article, did senpai notice me?! [hidden] Doubt on what from my point? I doubt that doubt is the killer? Yes. That I had doubt myself as I created a tulpa? Some perhaps, but I quickly adopted my absence of doubt mindset that helped me and never landed me in the doubt spirals many others went through. Doubt is not a tulpa killer. That is the point of the text. The community at that time decided that it was and pushed pure belief. The jump over the metaphorical hurdle. The one where the tulpa suddenly feels "real" for, well, real. It would be difficult for me to argue that this other person in my head isn't real, but that took time. At some point, however, it no longer was something I could doubt. The "blind belief" method removes the time to build a healthy relationship and come to your own conclusions. It just tries to rush you to the end result without any work and then when you don't have that work to fall back on when you do start questioning things? That's where tons stop. Indeed, a tulpa doesn't have to be believed in to exist. We both agree and we very much push the same idea: you don't have to believe, but you shouldn't just disbelieve and brush everything off until you know better. But I think in the end, all of us who do have tuppers end up believing in the existence of their tuppers. You don't need belief to get there, but in the end you tend to gain that belief. But you definitely shouldn't try to jump right to the end without the work put into it, or you might very well fall into those nasty things I wrote about. If it's "just believe in your tulpa" or "just trust in your tulpa" and the end result is the same (don't question your own feelings and thoughts, just believe/trust!!), it ends up being the same thing. Changing the word doesn't change anything if the message is the same. (same thing about your usage of subconscious, unconscious wouldn't fix it when you're still using it to mean the same thing) "Sentient" in this community, especially back in the day, has been used to mean sapient. It's a pretty common thing, I'm sure you've seen a ton of "sentient" races (they should be called species, usually…) in various works of fiction and they clearly mean sapient. When I write what someone else has said in this text, I write it how they have said it: sentient. But when I write what I want to say, I write what they meant and what I want to write because I want it to be exact: sapient. I haven't complained about your usage of sentient in your guide because you have clearly meant sentient and not sapient throughout. So congratulations, not many manage to do that. Though I'd argue it's important for tuppers to achieve sapience. Could be. Who knows.[/hidden] The main stuff [hidden] I would honestly suggest you use the much easier to understand "fictive" that lacks the stupid baggage of soulbond, if you really need a word to describe them as in a tulpa guide. Fictive is broader and thus more useful than well, the mess that is a "soulbond". With all the baggage included. Such is the unfortunate side effect of being presented with a 90 page guide. A shorter guide is just going to get more effort put into reading every sentence. Unless you'd be willing to wait like a week between each revision or something. You said something along the lines of "tulpas and hosts are cut from the same cloth", and I objected because you made it sound like tulpas and hosts will be similar, when they might not be. Or probably won't be, there's a lot of different people in the same body (and honestly, would get real boring if we all were the same, right?). You "fixed" it by… Saying tulpas and hosts will be similar. Nice. This is garbage. What does it even mean? Remove the whole cut from the same cloth stuff that implies sameness when honestly we tend to be really different. We could be similar, sure. But we're people and we don't have any presets. I did. You didn't fix it. Well, I'm not going to push it. I think it reads badly, but it's nothing severe. About the physiological changes caused by placebo, article on Harvard University's site. Inb4 "but that says nothing about nocebo", summary of an article about placebo and nocebo (the two sides of the same coin) on US National Library of Medicine. Indeed, that tends to be the issue. Not enough research. If boring like means it isn't dumb then go for it. It's not esoteric nor is it doing something no person is supposed to do. If you truly believe this then axe it from your guide, because we don't need your silly beliefs. Sure. I can't prove I don't have a soul. I can't prove there is no god. If someone one day proved those things to me, sure, I'll accept. But until they are proven, you can't claim they exist in a scientific community, unless you are willing to handle an argument from someone who doesn't believe in what you believe. A guide is not a debate, so a guide can't really have debatable aspects like that in it. You're supposed to give the facts – or state when they are only your beliefs. I am telling you to axe them based on your unfounded belief that there are definite primary thinkers and not being the primary thinker makes you worse at possession or your unfounded belief that there isn't a cancerous mindset here. So we're at a standstill here and will be until the end of time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Why it's dangerous: Certainly not what should be the end result and this is something you should work towards getting over asap. Your primary thinker syndrome makes it sound like the norm and something that should be lived with, when it's very much undesirable. Though I would hope we get to sleep for some hours there and don't have to think 24/7. Hard to say how many people can live together at the same strength in the same body. Too bad JDBar's not here, last I heard of him, he was experimenting on how many tulpas he could have that would do this. And mind you, all of his tulpas had their own wonderland lives. 5 seemed to be able to be done quite easily, according to his stories. Just living doesn't seem to be taking too much in the form of resources. Probably a different story if everyone tried doing advanced mathematics. That is actually a very outdated idea – is it making a comeback? It was a consensus that dissipation would more or less be impossible. Similarly, "egodeath" and such probably aren't permanent either. We will only know if a death is permanent when the actual body dies and there is no possibility of them coming back. People in this community rarely stay dead after their many "suicides". Or more like, ideas that are actively harmful because you make them sound like something that will happen, something that should be expected and is the norm. It is a phase at its best. Something to overcome. And people do and are better off because of that. I think you have no idea what an auditory hallucination is. A mindvoice is not an auditory hallucination. A mindvoice very much comes from "inside" and you can tell it's happening "inside your head", so to speak. An auditory hallucination is to mindvoice what full visual imposition (tupper can stand in front of you and block your physical sight) is to seeing them in your mind's eye. It would be like a physical person standing next to you and talking rather than a "voice in your head" – though some people definitely have auditory hallucinations as their "voices in their heads" in their various mental disorders, so take that to mean a literal voice coming from inside your head rather than a voice you could be fooled into thinking comes from "outside", if that makes any sense. And people in this community are very lazy about imposition. Auditory imposition is a lot easier than visual imposition, but if you think everyone in this community can hear their tulpa like another real physical person from outside their head, then well… Nah. It's pretty advanced. The mindset. It used to be expected that tulpas could do this. It was expected that they would do this. They were thought to be "stronger". We know they aren't, now. But I think right now we're stuck in a rut where people don't fully realize that they can do these things. Many think – even the tuppers themselves – that they're really weak when they're young and that they'll suddenly get stronger without ever trying. Possibly weaker than older ones, sure. But it doesn't mean they're helpless and they can always try. Trying just makes them practice. It could be. If we don't have any proof of someone else's memories, it's hard to say if they're real. Doesn't mean just tulpas, either. Fake memories are also a thing. Sometimes they're not lying, but they just believe something that never happened actually happened. But what kind of stories will we believe? Will we assume all memories we haven't seen ourselves are fake? It's a slippery slope. Think about that long and hard when your guide tells us to just trust our tuppers. Would you be happier with Preventing foreign ideas that are bad is a good thing, yes. Not everything should be shared, especially not STDs. You can talk about those freely. There's nothing magical about them and they are actual studied psychological phenomenons. However, once "magic" enters the picture, you go way over the line. This is a scientific tulpa community. It wants things rooted in science, including help. Or maybe, especially help. Imagine if you had money troubles and were feeling bad, went looking for help and someone asked you if you had accepted Jesus as your lord and savior, because that'll fix all the issues? That might help someone, sure. But it doesn't help with the money troubles. Scientific board, scientific topics and help. Not magic – unless you're willing to present a scientific look at magic. Myself, no. But I've seen many fall into similar pitfalls your whole guide likes to introduce and yes, I'd rather no one falls into them. No. Don't tell a host to rely on their tulpa to fight off intrusive thoughts. Don't tell a host to rely on their tulpa to fight off intrusive thoughts no matter the age. Don't tell a host to rely on their tulpa for anything. They are people. They can do what they want and they have different skills, no matter their age. A tulpa can try to help if they want, young or old. A 2 month old tulpa might very well be better at it than a 2 year old or a 20 year old tulpa. Or not. They're different and you shouldn't be limiting them by telling them they are going to be bad, when they might not be. I feel the same when I read your guide. If this was the guide presented to me when I had first started with tuppers, I'd… Well, first of all I'd be extremely turned off by all the weird terminology that sounds silly, but if I got over that, I'd run into primary thinker syndrome somewhere on the way. I wouldn't be here today if that had happened. You are always free to bring up any guides you feel don't fit the current standards so we can take another look. GAT is constantly evolving and different things will be expected at different points. Sometimes a guide that hasn't been completely up to standards has gotten through because the guide has been so old the author wasn't around anymore, but for the most part it was solid. You are also free to point out to an author if you think they have worded something poorly. Of course, getting authors who are long gone to change anything is impossible and we won't change their guides for them. If the guide is otherwise very good, only something very serious would probably get it removed from approved. It's easier if the author is still around, then we can ask for revisions. Sure. Things would atrophy when not used. But what if the tulpa keeps those pathways active by being active themselves? I hope you read up on the links I provided about how placebo and nocebo cause actual physiological changes despite being just "belief". Wikipedia rarely is a good list of all the studies done, yes. There of course is the usual concerns bit and the "low-carbohydrate diet" page has some findings about its effects, something you wouldn't achieve with a diet heavy in wheat. There also are of course other foods that have more of various nutrients and it's difficult for us to say if wheat would be the best bet if we're actually deficient in something another food would give us more. This was a pretty interesting study about comparing ancient and modern wheat and their effects on IBS. Kinda off-topic but interesting, I felt. More like it was a given that they would remember? Not that they always do because tuppers can also be scatterbrains just like anyone else. But I know mine had been pretty good at reminding me of things throughout his life. Didn't go into it with expectations, I assume? Anything can happen, expectations or not. But if you expect something negative, it is more likely to actually happen. You can affect yourself with mindsets. I think we all believe ourselves to be real more or less, not imaginary. Yet still it happens. As you force, you can block yourself from forcing properly by having a bad mindset. A tulpa might also inherit your bad mindset just like how a parent can pass on bad advice and ideas to their kids which then in turn will limit them. A child who has always been told they're worthless would have a really difficult time as an adult until they learn to understand that they're not worthless. A tulpa who believes they won't be able to think on their own will have a difficult time learning that unless they realize they can think on their own. No. You said the primary thinker will have an easier time possessing the body. We are talking about possession. So, if someone accept this mindset and isn't the "primary thinker", they would think they are worse at possession. And those thoughts might very well make them such. Forcing was not mentioned in this part of the conversation or the guide. Okay. What about people who have never experienced primary thinker syndrome? I do believe primary thinker syndrome is a real mindset – but a limiting one, because it only gives you limitations without the strengths a mindset where you are equal would give. Because people who have never experienced it exist, it means there is no "rule" that you will suffer from primary thinker syndrome. Your guide does not make a point about how it's not something that happens to everyone or how it can and should be overcome, if it does happen. Maybe if you learned from when I say it just one time. The term is half the issue. The entire idea is the biggest issue. I like primary thinker syndrome as a term, because it makes it what it is: an issue that you should and can overcome. It's not the expected end result nor is it something that will happen to everyone. Parallel processing problems for a term, if you like alliteration? Because that is what you are giving us. That wouldn't imply anything – as long as you make sure to note that it doesn't happen to everyone and that one can always get over the issues. But axe your "primary thinker is better at possessiiinnng" stuff because that's symbolism and mostly harmful for the one that isn't the "primary thinker". And nothing stops the tupper from "pushing" the host "sitting on that part of the brain", either. Assuming we're talking about controlling the body and not some primary thinker bullshit. People are pretty clever about finding their own ways when you encourage them. tl;dr there is no primary in our body and never was I would also question if there is just one "mind" in a body that has two personalities and two sets of thought processes going on? Or more than two. The definition more or less is that which we use in our switching definition outside the outdated glossary: you would be in an imaginary wonderland where you experience imaginary things as if they were real. This term comes from the time when tulpas were thought to be those amazing superior mindbeings always dealing with the imaginary wonderland stuff and never really with the body. Possession was actually extremely rare when I came into the community and even earlier before my time it was thought to be impossible. Why this term was bad and we wanted to get rid of it: 1. Hosts thought they would become "the tulpa". This is why "tulpa-like" anything shouldn't be used to describe anything hosts can do because some think it means something you didn't mean. 2. It implies tulpas have a role or a state that they should be in. It's like saying women belong in the kitchen and I don't think we should approve of that as people who deal with strong independent tuppers who need no man.[/hidden] Autism [hidden]I'm not saying autistic people can't feel empathy or feel less empathy when they feel it. You don't need to think I'm insulting you. However, empathy requires you to be able to read people to know how they are feeling. You have to be able to know what others are feeling to be able to feel what they are feeling. And if you have trouble doing that, you are going to have trouble being empathic. Are all autistic (I'll use this to refer to the whole spectrum in this text) people like this? No. Do some non-autistic people have issues with this too? Of course. But autistic people in general tend to have issues with social interaction. Alexithymia is pretty common in people with autism and other disorders in the spectrum. Myers-Briggs type indicator is pretty silly, but INTJ isn't exactly the "empathic" type. Saying that this community is both full of INTJ and empathic people just is weird, when I can definitely see the INTJ and stereotypical autistic social interaction issues but less so the deeply empathic bit.[/hidden] THE SUBCONSCIOUS [hidden] Not just "subconscious" – the subconscious. As is a scientific community, not only is there no place for such a word, there is no place for a theory that modern science doesn't believe in. That is the issue. You also don't present these as your theories but as statements one might assume are facts. Both. Just because it's not true doesn't mean it isn't harmful. Someone might say all muslims are terrorists. Clearly it is false, because not all are. But some would believe it and some do believe it. It won't make the lives of non-terrorist muslims any easier. Then why do you say this in your guide: That is your theory. You are again presenting it as a fact, as something that happens, rather than your theory. If you believe it to be like that, yes. If you don't believe it to be like that, no. A tulpa doesn't pop out with a perfect fully formed personality. A tulpa is when they are. When they exist, they can do things. And they learn and grow all the time, just like everyone else. It has happened. However, the "old way" of creating tulpas was doing personality forcing. Irish was the first to create a guide without personality forcing, as far as the old guides go. Of which there were like, two. Neither really seemed to dominate the other in terms of how long it took, people just had their preferences. Those were the only two proper tulpa creation guides for a long time. Harmful, possibly spreading and creating big issues that take a long time for others to remove so they can have a healthier mindset that doesn't bring them down. There is no scientific basis in it. Modern science has not found any basis in "the subconscious" theory and now avoids the entire word – even without the "the". If scientists haven't found a way to prove your theory then I don't think you'll be proving it either. It's difficult to see where else it would have come except your own personal belief that this is what happened. As long as it hasn't been proven, it's a theory at best. An extremely shaky theory with no scientific backing in this case. Still, it's not like a theory is a bad thing. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Both have a ton of proof for them, yet they still aren't accepted as the complete truth yet because there is so much we don't know. However, if you wish to present your theories here in a form that is difficult to debate and comment on (most people will just read the guide and leave it at that, some possibly believing absolutely everything you wrote as a fact because you never made them question), you have to mark them as theories. When you have theories mixed with facts or common knowledge with no way of differentiating between them, you fool your readers. Remember when we talked about the theory of yawning raising alertness? You agreed to my points about it being anecdotal, yet you fight everything else based on the same principle: it has not been proven, yet you present it as a fact. Here. If by "problems" you mean "completely eradicated from modern psychology" then yes. As for the rest, about "the subconscious": There is no "the subconscious" accepted by science. I am also having a very difficult time understanding what it is you mean with this "the subconscious". I get some Freud bullshit, but you say it's not it. You agree with some of my points and then do a 180 and seem to say something that contradicts your earlier statements. This is the big issue behind the term "the subconscious". I have absolutely no idea what you mean with it anymore. None whatsoever. This is very bad in guides.[/hidden] Tulpa"mancy" [hidden] What other is there to "tulpamancy" other than making a tulpa? Could you call a person who doesn't have a tulpa a "tulpamancer", because if you do… Well, I think that's false advertising? Like everyone calling themselves "tulpamancers" in their cringy ways has a tulpa. Just like there is no "pre"-tulpa, a person considering making a tulpa and then starting to make one is a host. Referring to the person reading the guide as a "host" is not any worse than referring to a non-sapient, nonindependent, unvocal mind fetus as a "tulpa". Of course, if the host stops before they get a tulpa, they would no longer be a host. A tulpa that isn't forced enough until they become a tulpa also never was a tulpa in the first place for real. Confusing perhaps, slightly. But for the most part we're a community of people who go through this, writing material for other people who we want to go through this. Is a mother a mother when they are pregnant or after they have given birth? What if the child was born dead or the child dies soon after? People. We're not in this to have a fancy group name. If you need to call us the community, go ahead. If you need to call something else the Reddit tulpa community or community, go ahead. You need to refer to us all, the tulpa communities? Sure. These communities tend to be different and our methods and mindsets are different, so lumping us all together should be done sparingly, especially if you are trying to present something from one community as a thing that is in all the communities. But we're people. Many people in a single body perhaps, but that doesn't make us more or less people. We're not different or special compared to people who are on their own in a body. Maybe they'll even have other people in the same body one day, never know.[/hidden] After a month of frequent and very long back and forths that have required a lot of time for cross referencing and fact studying but haven't gone anywhere, I am going to stop with the back and forth until there is a major revision that finally fixes the huge issues I have had throughout the guide. As the author has stated there probably won't be one, I doubt I will be continuing working on this unless I am proven wrong. Rest of the GAT can do their best. Disapproved for Guides. Reasons: presenting personal beliefs and theories as facts alongside actual facts that will most definitely fool newcomers into believing these to be true. Pushing bad mindsets that only cause harm in the long run for easily impressionable people, which many newcomers tend to be. "Primary thinker" mindset is especially bad, throwing away the notion of equality between a host and tulpa(s), making the phase of having difficulties at parallel processing something "normal" that will happen. "The subconscious" theories are also grating and extremely unscientific for a community that has the tagline "for science!", not to mention difficult to understand: I still have no idea what is meant with this extremely vague concept and every attempt at trying to understand has contradicting responses ("it is symbolism", "it's not an entity" yet the text seems to imply that it is real and has some kind of mysterious powers and the ability to act). Some magic talk that doesn't belong in this side of the forum. Lesser issue that does not have to be fixed necessarily, but looks bad: use of joke terms like tulpamancy and tulpamancer as legit terms when author has tried to make the guide look "professional". Lots of other words that could also be removed. When this was still a compilation of different exercises, it was better because even though it had things that were off and some even completely awful, there was just less off and completely awful bits so it was better due to that alone. It's a real pity too, because there is a lot of really good stuff that would be helpful for the community. Unfortunately that good is sandwiched between bad that I consider so bad, it would outright harm the process of anyone trying to follow the guide.
  3. Been a hectic last few days, so this was the earliest I could get back to this. If you're really going to work towards getting this accepted then sure, I'll stick around. That's what I do. I'll just take your word for it, not much else I could really take. I'll just assume you checked your titles for the CORRECT CAPITALIZATION and focused more on other things this time, but we'll take a look at them again later to check I guess. Beginning [hidden] Decided to put this at the start to address it right away. A blog article is not exactly proof unless they have conducted research. You can use it as "these people have said something like this has happened" thing, but not "this will happen" or "this has been tested and proven" (if it isn't) kind of stuff, alright? Also quickly addressing this even though I have linked it like about a bajillion times now, absence of disbelief text. Back to the guide. This actually made me stumble for a while as I read. Maybe do something to make the bit stand out, italics or quotes like that "what am I doing" feeling? I'd reconsider using a word like "plural" that is not exactly terminology right at the start where you might already lose readers. I assume you wanted this to be newbie friendly, yeah? It would require restructuring your sentence, though. "Non-tulpa groups" doesn't necessarily mean that they do have tuppers or something, for example. Non-tulpa groups with other types of thoughtforms or somesuch might work with the current sentence structure. This kinda stuck out for me this time around. Not really? If it can't be proven true, even if there's things that back it up, it's a theory. It can be proven wrong, of course. Or just something that is unlikely based on everything we know this far. What? I think the second sentence is a bit odd and I'm not sure what you're trying to tell us. Also why not use something like "fictive" I've seen people using to mean this, which does not have the baggage of the word soulbond? (and is slightly less meta-sounding) Also what's with the caps in Accidental Tulpa? I know these are theories and all and I like the bit you wrote about this chapter, but I feel like you might want to address that more belief can also easily lead to more doubt. Like you kinda address it, saying that less belief leads to less doubt but this chapter kinda reads like less belief = less doubt but also more belief = less doubt, because you never said it doesn't after you brought it up the first time. Kinda contradicting or just not getting the point across all that well? Your personal theories should not be presented as facts in a guide. Huh? I don't know if we know what would be "too fast", also might want to avoid words like "will" when dealing with something like this. Literally the first time I have heard of this. What does this mean? No! You did the exact thing you weren't supposed to do! I said you were implying that they will be similar, when they might not be (probably even "most likely will not be"). And what did you do? You said it outright. No. They will not be similar to you. And from the same part: Will will will will. Will is a strong word, even when used with "usually". Might. May. Could. Not will. No, they "will" not need a little help. They might. "You want your tulpa to do all the work?" is also quite blaming in tone. Chapter 3.3 and 3.4 should not be where they are. 3.2 leads up to the exercises with the ending text, but then you have some stuff in the way that cuts the flow. Restructuring or rewording? I suggest you give it a few reads. I can't really see 3.3 and 3.4 coming before 3.2 which is the planning step, but it feels a bit odd the way it is right now. Guides aren't meant for you to air out your beliefs. They are meant to help newcomers to make tuppers, not to give them weird ideas that you present as facts that are accepted in the community or even proven when they're your personal beliefs. I use the word because it is the best one to describe exactly what it is you're doing. For example, "is it cancerous even if true"? No, it's cancerous because it is not true and it is a harmful idea. It is an idea you try to implant in the heads of people who don't know better, where it will grow and inhibit their progress until it is cut out – and that won't be easy. Also, another way to look at personality forcing, not a theory of mine or anything but a thing to consider: does it even do anything in the first place? You treat it as something that makes a tulpa's personality unless THE SUBSCONSCIOUS creates it for them!!!, but does it? We have always known about deviation and we have always accepted it. Said it should be allowed to happen and that it's great, even. But those would be things that go against the personality you are forcing. Sometimes you end up with a completely different tupper than you had in mind. Did the personality forcing really do much, or was it just narration and attention? Would you have gotten the same end result if you had just spent time with them and talked to them about things, skipping the personality aspects completely? "My way or it wouldn't be able to happen in any way!!!". I told you how I saw it. Time. Experience. We experience things, we think, we grow. Those all change who we are and that is what I could see making us into who we are, rather than some mystery entity shitting out a personality for us out of nowhere. Fun thing about personalities in general, genetics also play a part. Siblings aren't likely to be similar at all, but twins, even when growing apart and never having seen each other, tend to have similar personality traits. Scientifically tested, by the way. However, even though we're basically identical to a tupper in genetics, we still tend to be very different. Strange thing, eh? Do. Not. Write. Your. Personal. Beliefs. As. Facts. In. Guides. They do not belong in guides. Newcomers are impressionable and think you know more than you know. You can present theories if you say they are your personal beliefs that you may or may not have proof for, but you can't say x is a thing when it very well might not be a thing. Good thing I said physically testable, right? Oh wait I didn't, how about that. There's more ways to prove things, or at the very least, study them and gather enough data to have a pattern. You asked, your rules. I provided. Are you going to move the goalposts now? are you Dude. You're saying you don't believe in placebo. It's not some cure-all, they don't exist. No one is claiming them to be such. If you have a tumor you're still going to need to cut it off and hope you'll survive and such. There are, of course, many, many things much more effective than placebo medicine. However, placebo is A SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED AND PROVEN PHENOMENA, as is nocebo. Saying you don't believe in it is pretty foolish. This is why ALL medicine has to go through placebo tests before it is allowed on the market! They have to prove that they work better than nothing at all! That is how strong placebo can be, working better than actual chemicals you pump into your body. Just how dense are you?[/hidden] Exercises bit. I didn't comb through the actual file that much this time as you wanted to focus on the other parts first, but I'll address the issues we're already going through: [hidden] Eh I guess that's better. The tv and the internet says a lot of things. Sometimes satirical news and studies are used as the basis of a legit news article, too. Best thing our buddy pal Wikipedia has: Just "animals" would do. A dog would run and get over objects in a much different way than a cat, which is different compared to a bear, which is different to a gorilla, which is different to an ostrich, which is different to the world's most agile imaginary lizard… All got their own movements that make it a fresh new exercise. The common plural for tulpa in this community was "tulpae", until we managed to eradicate it for the most part. People also have used "octopi" (even my spellchecker thinks this is wrong!) as the plural of octopus for a really long time, but now I'm seeing a lot more "octopuses" and even the occasional "octopode", which is right though pedantic. Subconscious is no longer used in professional, scientific communities. Even if we're not that, we can aim to be closer to it and avoid using such terms. No, it would not do a thing in your case. The issue is of you referring to it as the subconscious. Referring to it as the unconscious does not change anything. Here's my favorite Wikipedia quote from Erich Fromm: As non-symbolism, it usually is. You are free to think what you want and no one can stop you, but unless you're willing for new age-y theories you present as totally legit and reel guise to be ripped apart by a more skeptical mind, you probably should avoid talking about it in the non-meta parts of the forum. There is no "the subconscious" that has agency to "destroy" our "foreign thoughts". But then you whined: But my point still stands. That is the only thing you can do to save your exercise without making it you shoving your beliefs as facts down our throats. It is indeed funny how he hates the term many use, but he still helped popularize it whether he wants it or not. However, the concept of a "the subconscious/unconscious" is him, the model you are using. That there is the conscious, the preconscious (the unconscious thoughts you can access) and the subconscious/unconscious (the unconscious things you can't and will never access). Change the words all you want, but your model is very close to his as far as I can tell – and nothing Freud has really come up with has stood up to scrutiny. And don't treat our unconscious thoughts as a "place" or an "entity" or anything that has agency or thoughts of its own. Nice. Thanks. Same thing, different words. That is one way to lump them together easily, so thanks for the new term I'll yoink. Preconscious is mostly a Freudism (though at least he claims to not have come up with the word/definition) for his model where unconscious thoughts can't be accessed in any way. Preconscious would be the unconscious thoughts that can be accessed, in his model. But they both are unconscious thoughts in the sense that they are not conscious at the time you're not thinking of them, others just much more easy for you to notice. Also I find the Wikipedia article funny considering how earlier you were like: And the Wikipedia page starts with: Listing Subconscious Communion as "esoteric" is kinda meh. What's this? Your theories based on outdated ideas don't match what modern science thinks after actual research and you refuse to take into account the new findings? Stop the presses! Not a question. A exasperated statement. No. No you are not. You don't say it's a joke and it's not crazy enough to be assumed to be a joke in this crazy community (especially knowing your beliefs), so you don't get away with it without adding "I kid" or something there. Rewrite body shaped soul. I would also suggest a "symbolism" category you add to your symbolic exercises. Again, "my way or it couldn't work in any way!!!". I don't think I have a soul. That doesn't mean I'm not a person. I don't think you have a soul. You're probably a person, too. Soul is not something that has been proven to exist scientifically. Don't present your opinions as facts in guides. It doesn't belong on this side of the forum. Put it in the meta board. Let's see the lead up. No. Axe it, there are no primary thinkers and we do not want this cancerous mindset here. Anyway. Your implication that there is a "primary" and a "nonprimary" creates a very bad environment for tulpas and hosts. After all, primary is the highest, the first. There can't be two. So, one will have to always be lesser. And we would all want our tuppers to be strong (probably?!), so your implications are that when they do become this, then you start getting issues. I suggested a better lead up after you remove the tumor that is primary thinker syndrome from this exercise. Right and wrong. The thing was, back then vocality meant complete auditory imposition coming out of nowhere without you even trying to hear it and any other kind of form of communication was not known about or looked for. People started realizing there were signs earlier on and these people you could thank for the community we got today. Otherwise there'd still be like, a handful of vocal tuppers in this community. Sapience was also highly linked to vocality because that first contact was supposed to be so alien and out of your control, that there would be absolutely no room for doubt anymore. Tuppers back then had to work really hard, huh? Wasn't an issue BACK IN THE DAY once methods for looking for other signs of vocality were a thing, so there's stories of "prevocal" and young tuppers being independent. In fact, pretty much all of the tuppers then very much had their own things they did in the wonderland when not paid attention to. It was something that was expected out of them and only later did more and more issues with the inability to do much when not paid attention to. Thank you for this extremely important piece of information that adds so much to this conversation. No. No it does not. Primary thinker syndrome is an awful disease of the mind. Only you can prevent its spread. I am saying that as a scientific community, such things don't belong in guides because a scientific community wouldn't exactly believe in something like that. People have tried doing things like this, people have failed. People who claim to be able to do it refuse to prove it when you challenge them. It's pretty much a busted theory. Such beliefs belong in the meta board.[/hidden] End: [hidden] What is young enough? Do you know? Do I know? Does the tulpa know? Does the host know? They do not. They can only try and you shouldn't already tell them that they won't be able to do it. I suggest you still tell people to try out all kinds of things they might think works too, not just possession. Just because we don't know of other methods doesn't mean they don't exist. I'd honestly remove the bit about where you "think" they'll be stuck. They can tell you whatever they want. It does not mean you can present ~~their personal experiences~~ as facts. You don't say this or that might happen. You say tulpas are this and that. You are saying their personality will be like this. That's like just because I have had the pleasure of going back and forth with you with this guide for a very long time, I'd write all tuppers are stubborn and consider their opinions to be the best and rightest of them all. I have a hard time seeing empathy being strong in this community. I see lots of emotions. When you call this community empathic, I honestly don't see this community in those words at all. Overemotional though, yes. PS. the falsehood that an autistic person tends to have trouble reading social cues which then in turn translates to having trouble knowing what others think, which in turn can cause them to have a hard time empathizing with them because they didn't read the feeling? Such falsehoods, oh my. I have rewording suggestions: And uh, more. Reminder that it's not healthy for people to be alone and neglected here, because tuppers are people and that's probably much more important than them disappearing. Then why not say that you don't know if anything else works, but are interested in hearing if someone does have tested something else? You are creating nocebo here by saying this will not happen or will harm you – especially when people these days tend to take medicine for their various ailments and they aren't psychedelic drugs! What if someone becomes worried the medicine for their heart problem is going to hurt their tulpa process – and then it will? It's for the best. If they have done actual scientific studies, it's all worth taking into account for closer inspection. Even if it's against your own beliefs. Sounds like a pretty foreign concept to me. Hahaha I don't think any of us would have used the word "adult" to describe that dunce. Your personal experience (which is not a fact even if you try to present it as such). Just before you try to object to that, no, I'm not saying you're lying. You experienced it. But it does not mean everyone else experiences it, or that they should. You might be creating these experiences for them by saying it is something that will happen. It is negative because it implies these people will have a harder time possessing when you make them suffer from primary thinker syndrome. Not that they think and quit, that their mindset makes it harder even when it doesn't have to be. Because of your words. Nah. But you also shouldn't fabricate falsehoods that you present as truth. Your primary thinker syndrome. It is 1. a mindset and 2 a bad mindset at that, and it definitely is not from, so it must come from elsewhere. Or are you saying you made it up completely based on your own experiences, so it didn't come from a community but came from you, personally? "Primary" implies the highest. The first. There can't be more than one primary. Everything else not the primary according to your mindset is lesser. This is a poor mindset for hosts and tulpas, because it is not true that one of them will be superior. No. A host doesn't need to back off. We do it, especially for new tuppers who have no experience, to make it easier for them. Otherwise they'd have to wrestle it out of our metaphorical hands (didn't you even have an exercise that was about this?) and then the host might still be in control in the background there, leading to confusion about movements. But there's hosts who don't know how to let go, either. Those tuppers have to learn to make do and they often "push" the other out of the way. The host then might do the same unless the tupper knows how to let go. Once a tupper is good at possession then they're set, and hopefully the host would also know how to do the same. I'd say me and the tupperino are good at the possession thing. Letting go is courtesy to just allow the other to come in and continue from there. It doesn't feel too good if you're forced out of the way, honestly. But no way does that make either of us "secondary". Training is experience. Once there is experience, your "primary" theory falls flat on its face. You can do whatever you want, but it is what it is. You don't have to. You are possessing. It is what it is. It might prompt someone to ask the question "full body?" though, and that would be a completely logical follow-up. Our old friend "tulpa-like state" that is from those early days where a tulpa was seen as the superior being when it came to mind things? The word we want to destroy? This is the thing you want to refer to in your modern guide? No one really uses it anymore. Well, if they use it, they're quickly corrected because it's a dumb term. No one even seemed to know we had a glossary until I pointed it out. My site? Well sure I guess I can tell Kiahdaj to copypasta my definitions from somewhere, maybe he'd like that?![/hidden] Tons of "tulpamancy" and "tulpamancer" stuff still, some suggestions for now: [hidden]Parts where "tulpamancer" can easily be changed to host: Illusion of Sentience Deciding Your FAQ section Tulpa communities. Pretty early for "plurality" as your readers might not really know what it is. It sure sounds silly to an outsider of such communities, like myself. Might want to think of coming up with another term or defining that you will use "plural" to mean non-tupper groups in the intro section the first time you use it to save yourself the headache. To be henceforth referred to as plurality or something. Tulpa creation has… Creating tulpas. Tulpa creation or creating tulpas works here too. Hey it's not tulpamancy or tulpamancer, what is this?! I suggest "can impact the host and the tulpa(s)"…[/hidden]
  4. Yes, don't tell people to just love others. Like, jesus. If someone just told you to love someone, would you? Could you? You won't love everyone, even if you wanted to. Sometimes it just doesn't go like that. Don't try to force people into it, only thing I can think of when I hear something like that is "that's fucked up". And "stimulate your host's reward center" sounds like bullshit about you MANIPULATING THE BRAIN FOR REEL GUISE. If you meant to say entertain, say entertain. Not this. Reminder that we only proofread things meant for .info. Your word choices make me think that you are just trying to use this service to change the parts you think are wrong and then post this elsewhere with the things we object to when this doesn't get approved, because you never planned on it getting approved. I can't force you to change it until it is approved and I can't stop you from posting this elsewhere, but if you are intentionally planning on not making this fit for, you're going to have to pay for this, okay? I mostly read the parts you claimed to have reworded, as I can't read this from the start every time, unfortunately. I'll do a big read through when you make a big edit that you think fixes all the issues. Onto the talky bits. Start [hidden] I assumed, because that way there actually were less errors, though looking at it now, "with" has been capitalized while I could have sworn it wasn't when I first read it. Anyway, in that case, look at words like "my", "it", "me" and even the, uh, "the". Possibly "man" if three and under is your limit and "versus" has been uncapitalized in all of the titles. Your guide's title, the "thoughtform family tree" and "tulpa development chart" parts haven't been edited to fit the rest of the title writing scheme. If you have actual scientific research backing up your claims or a big enough study group (a hundred is very little, more is better but a hundred is definitely better than say, 5), go ahead. If you only have the word of a handful of people or things you write are something that maybe happened to you, you need to realize what they are: personal experiences that may or may not be the case always. Don't claim things are or happen, say they have happened or might happen, but there isn't enough data to say if that it's true and usually there is someone with the complete opposite experience somewhere. When we deal with the mind, expect the unexpected. I would suggest to get rid of the community chapters, yes. They're extremely personal and biased looks (not to mention just plain out of place in a tulpa creation guide). In your dreams, yes. Every time I see someone say "tulpamancy" outside the community (it happens, it's very cringeworthy), you know it's a newfag. You can help prevent its spread. Learning English in Same thing with licence/license, too, if you're using British English. Interesting facts?! Okay, sure. Are you claiming it to be a staple, though? Because I have seen it used like a grand total of 1 time. I've seen the "plural" of tulpas "tulpalama" used more that this by that one person who tried to force it. Yes, there's some redundancy and such. I'd suggest you review those bits and see where you have the stronger presentation/wording. I liked what you did in that part. The issue I had was with this wording: Like, why even mention them? It's very out of place. Saying that writers might create accidental tulpas when they get too carried away with building their characters says the exact same thing without trying to use the term that really isn't used in all that much. And probably shouldn't be due to its extremely embarrassing origins. You can say what you tried to say much better without the term being all weird there, so why use it? Talk about the debate all you want. You say you don't think belief is important, yeah, sure. I don't think you need to start out believing and you definitely shouldn't blindly believe. But then you say things like this in the very same paragraph: That basically says "but you have to believe though or it's like rude and such". You think you're saying something but saying something completely different. Something that actually seems to back up what you claim to not be needed. Sure. I would consider it ideal to not believe or trust anything you don't feel fine believing and trusting in, but also to not disbelieve anything when you don't have proof. This is something we agree on and I hope you have read my absence of disbelief text detailing this mindset. But people aren't going to always be able to do that (especially when just in the last paragraph you told us that we basically have to believe or we're rude anyway). You can doubt trust. You tell us to do these things but we also should not question them. People will question. That is normal. They'll probably doubt. That is normal too. Not useful, but we can see that it happens to people. These people need help, not just telling "oh don't do it". Are you reading what you're writing? No but yes? I think you need a rewording if this is what you mean, it was unclear. Using the word imagination there is also a bit weird. Like, "imagination" is imaginary but just because it is imaginary doesn't even mean it never happened. Sure, if I go for a swim in my imagination, it's not like I went for a real swim – but you can't claim that I didn't go for a swim in my imagination. The act of imagining it was real, if this makes any sense? Some people also use "real" to mean physical, in which case tulpas aren't physical unless they're currently using the body. But that also means us host folk aren't physical when we're using the body, you know? That is not at all what is translates to. I suggest not using vague phrases that can easily be taken to mean something completely different. Cut from the same cloth means you are similar, of same nature. To me your sentence implies the tulpa and I will have similar personalities, not that we are identical physically. Whether true or not, I have heard this advice flying around. It is supported by my personal observation that I am not capable of anything my host would not have been if she just thought about things a little differently. No like what is it supposed to even mean. The personalities of my close family members go all over the place. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? It's absolutely meaningless to me. Don't put your theories down as a fact. Nowhere did you state "I have a theory that…", you said "this happens". Buddy. That ain't how it works. You can't claim a thing and then ask others for proof when they challenge your claims. The burden of proof is on you. (by the way, THE SUBCONSCIOUS as you treat it has not been scientifically proven, either) Then please, please listen and think long and hard why I keep objecting to you doing this thing only for you to go UM EXCUSE ME BUT I THINK THIS AND I'M NOT CHANGING IT. Sure. How about yours truly right here? No, not because the tupper was naked. I study anatomy and have drawn plenty of naked models after staring at them in real life, there's nothing wrong with naked human beings in my eyes. But you see, I found having to visualize something while narrating things was extremely distracting and that hurt my concentration. I was lucky that the guide that told you to narrate to a BALL OF LIGHT or something wasn't the only one or I might have stopped with it because it felt like I wasn't getting anything done following this method. Saying it is the only method will only hurt people like me who weren't able to do it. Sure, it can happen. Often because neither the hosts nor the tulpas handled the situation well during creation, which is why you should put some effort into detailing that if you care about their well-being. This is the mind. And the mind of us human beings is very powerful. I am sure you have heard of placebo. Feed a person a pill that is just sugar but tell them it's medicine that will heal them, and if they believe it, they will be healed. Scientifically proven. Just like nocebo, the negative brother of placebo. Say that the pill is poison instead and they will feel the effects even though there is nothing that could hurt them here. So yes, if you say x will happen, many people will have x happen to them, because they trust your words and you have implanted this mindset into them. It won't work for all, but people who don't know better are looking at you for guidance. If I looked up to you and believed your words, I would consider every single person who makes a tulpa with a backstory a horrible monster for forcing them to go through PTSD despite knowing better. You know, talking about real PTSD here too that requires therapy and not tumblr PTSD where you get PTSD for someone spritzing your face with water or not tagging pomegranates as gore. 80% of the people in this community have tuppers with backstories and ended up getting PTSD, gotcha. Yes I'm sure that you have never heard of how people can tackle their issues by trying to understand them, especially when the issue is all in their minds. How silly of me, it's not like you can get over your fears by first understanding what it is (the unknown is scarier) and realizing that there is nothing to be afraid of and that you are overreacting. No you're just doomed to failure and PTSD and everything, nothing we can do here ever, guess therapy is completely useless in every way because our minds can't affect the outcome of our lives in any way.[/hidden] Middle [hidden] You should. It's out of place. Is that my fault or the fault of your clumsy wording? Hardly matters what some schools or traditions think. People use it as a tool for exactly this. Are they wrong? (honestly everyone I ever see practice meditation does it exactly for these reasons, but I also don't hang around with religious people so I'm probably missing that side of it. Still, it doesn't mean the side I see doesn't exist, while you seem to try to ignore them because…?) They don't waste channels for that kind of stuff here, no. But DVDs and Bluerays of them exist. There's also aquariums and stuff? Off-topic now wow. It has not been scientifically proven, yes. People have claimed that it happens, that is anecdotal. So, it is still anecdotal until it is properly tested. Your need to mention how you did something or felt something is very distracting when reading this guide, as it doesn't add much and looks like you're needy for attention. This is basically the point where it got so annoying I had to point it out after reading your whole guide in one go. Probably. Does it hurt to add in your exercise if you think it would be helpful? Especially if they grow tired of the exercise, they could breathe new life to it by changing the shape of the runner. Maybe the original one was humanoid and the new one is more dog-like for an entirely different moveset? You are trying to give people ideas, yeah? Like sure, you don't have to, but… What I have stated before: Basically, it is not a scientific term and it means nothing. Saying that it's "the" subconscious also makes it something mysterious and other. I also said this: And you said this: However, you also said this, which is contradicting: You are definitely treating this THE SUBCONSCIOUS as a thing, which it is not. At least, it has never been proven to be something like this. Keep in mind that Freud was the one who made the term popular and he was wrong about oh, everything and his models are no longer used. He wasn't wrong about us having unconscious thoughts and them shaping us and you know, being a part of us, but he wasn't the first one to come up with the idea. Who knows what you really mean, but it doesn't read good. Here's some pictures to maybe help explaining what exactly is wrong, complete with amazing mouse-written text. How you make it sound, whether you mean it or not (you certainly seem like you mean it): What it should read like: You make it separate. But it's not. Our unconscious thoughts, memories, dreams, fears, likes and dislikes make us – and when things stop being conscious, they become unconscious, but they don't have to stay unconscious if we think about them. If we want to stop being an embarrassing pseudo-scientific community that is a laughingstock of the rest of the world, we really should stop using pseudo-scientific terms that aren't used in modern day psychology but are used in new age make believe. You can keep something like your THE SUBCONSCIOUS exercise in the guide, yes. As it is right now, I will never approve it, however. This was my suggestion a long time ago: The answer to "do I have to label it more clearly" is always yes when you are writing a guide. If it can be misunderstood, it will, at some point. It's not even a question, it is an exasperated statement because I don't even. Anyway, definition of a body map: So probably not that. The objectionable parts in your text are: > It (body image) is super closely connected to identity by default. (I don't think everyone connects their body image to their identity) >By toying with the idea of changing this body image, we are reaching deep into the esoteric arts, and doing things no person is supposed to do. (this should be obvious like, what are you even talking about?) If you present something as a fact, you don't have the luxury of assuming. Fact checking is something you have to do. If you don't, then you can't present it as a fact. A quick Googling showed me nothing. "Soul" is not scientific. Don't claim people have souls when it has not been proven. The Dark Arts exercise still has to go. Then say it. Say who it is meant for. Yes, I have a tulpa. Five years old this summer. Do you know why I talk a lot about mindsets? Back in the early days when I joined the community and started this whole thing, tuppers were not only seen as equals to us hosts in their mental capabilities, but even superior in many ways. "More connected" and "capable" because they were being of the mind rather than beings so closely connected to the physical world, so they were believed to have an edge over us. I abandoned the thoughts of "superiority" pretty fast, but the funny thing? The early tuppers definitely were very capable and strong, even when young. The idea that they wouldn't be able to think on their own once developed was completely foreign and so, none of the tuppers actually were like that until later on when the illusion of strength was broken, perhaps. Because my (and the tupper's, one could assume) mindset was that the tupper doesn't need me, maybe that's why he doesn't need me in the way you describe, never has. That's the power of our mindsets. It won't happen to every young tulpa, what you claim. It might happen to some, perhaps even most. This is what you want to make obvious, because stating it will happen will create bad mindsets. We don't need to create overly positive and false ones (tuppers are stronger and more capable!!!) but we can definitely create ones that are truthful (a young tulpa might have trouble thinking on their own, but they definitely don't have to be like this and it is not the ideal end state, so effort should be put into overcoming such issues). That is a scientific community. But why can't you write that they could also do it in real life, if they choose to? Rather than saying IRC is the only option? You shouldn't choose for people. Not really. How about this: >You are about to let someone else into your head – figuratively.[/hidden] End [hidden] What you wrote is that older tulpas "can" (not will, which is fine) help with intrusive thoughts etc, and that "the same cannot be said about younger tulpas". You can say "oh I meant this" all you want, but it's not at all obvious from your text. It reads like "young tulpas can't do it". Let's look at your exercise: It is and exercise with clear steps. If you are having issues with this, do 1, then 2, then try 3. Sure. And then you tell us to drink plenty of water and eat comfort food. It is not a part of the exercise. It should not be a step in the exercise. It should be moved elsewhere and not be here. Sure. Any drug could be causing problems. But you do not tell people to cut off their medication without consulting a medical professional. Like jesus. This is dangerous and could kill a person, don't you see how bad your advice is? There's many ways we might not even be thinking about, because we never were there. Always remind people that there are routes none of us have even seen before. Probably not something you should be having in your guide, especially not when you don't say what it is (testimonials of personal experience) and present it more as a fact. It's not exactly a myth. It certain doesn't mean all people in the autism spectrum are like this (hence why I didn't say all are like that), but empathy does require you to be able to read other people to be able to know how they are feeling. And such social cues can often go right over a person with this condition. I'd say that the people in this community are overemotional rather than "overly empathic". Then please state who it is meant for instead of just saying "this happens". So lemme get this straight. Because you haven't heard of other drugs being used for this, it means everything else is either useless or harmful? Are you really thinking what you write through? About diet: yes, definitely cite your sources and do look on both sides of the issue, not only the studies that back you up. Something like wheat for example, is currently very controversial (low carb diets were just a fad and gluten is now the devil). There really are studies going both ways, saying that wheat (whole wheat only, really) is good and ones that say it can be safely skipped or should be skipped. And do make a note that you are not a nutritional expert. People are very dumb when it comes to fad diets and they follow whatever even if it kills them, if it "sounds like it makes sense". Fad diets have killed people. Always remember allergies and intolerances. People sensitive to gluten must exclude wheat and other products that have similar gluten from their diets, for example. Or they will be having a very bad time. Not sure if this really is something that should be in a tulpa guide, though. If it is your personal experience, state it. Do not treat it as a fact. You also are extremely ignorant thinking that everyone has the same schedule like you, so your explanation doesn't actually help us use your tip in any way. Many people are at work or at school at noon, unable to nap. A person who came home at 6am after a night shift sure would be sleeping at noon, but not taking a nap like you. Why was it good? Why did you sleep at noon? Was it before you forced? After you forced? In between? What was the logic behind it? How can we use this tip when our schedules are different? Just like saying you need to have x amount of progress in y amount of years or you should SEEK HELP. While in your reword it doesn't quite read like it will happen, it might be good to remind people that it might not happen. Because it certainly doesn't happen to everyone. To you, maybe. To some who buy into this mindset and use it as symbolism, maybe. But do not claim it as a fact because it is a negative one (read: if you are not a "primary thinker", you will have harder time possessing, when this is untrue) Can you please not try to bring such bad mindsets from other communities into, thanks. We don't want something this bad to spread and make people think it is normal and that it will happen to them, because it is us who then have to try to get them out of that slump. Who knows. Their own experiences. Just like how you get the idea that there is a "primary thinker" who has the ability to decide who moves the body and such. Crazy talk, amirite? Unfortunately, possession alone does not have the distinction. If a tulpa would be writing this message, for example, they could say they were possessing whether they were only moving the hands or the entire body. Hence why there are terms "partial possession" and "full body possession". You have a strange habit of bringing in words from other communities or claiming that words you use are widely accepted, but then you snuff out actual terms this community uses? Then don't use it. We both object to its usage, it's poorly worded and implies things neither of us want to imply. So why imply it? How about listening to me then, as the self-appointed anti switching redefiner enforcer. At this point it might as well be the only reason why I'm in GAT.[/hidden]
  5. Definitely don't have to try to change at once. If I felt like I had to split my review into parts, we can definitely do changes in parts and go over them like that instead of always having to re-read the whole thing. As for "tulpamancy", you proved in your exercises that you can write perfectly fine without such terms. It's really strange to actually look at the exercises and compare them to the rest, it's like an almost different person with a different terminology wrote them. What I'm saying here is that I like your exercises and how most of them are written except the few stinkers. Potential replacements depending on what you are trying to say: creator, creating (a tulpa), forcing, host, just plain not trying to explain something in a single word if it would benefit the guide to say more in some places. Because you already have made a point in the rest of the guide about how even if you use "host" in something, it could very well also apply to tulpas. Often it's people new to tulpas who get the most out of a guide, so using host and referring them to as such would make it an easy read to them. But as a tulpa could also just as easily make another tulpa and use this guide, there's nothing wrong with saying that somewhere.
  6. Alright, you actually have a guide part to this now to make it a general guide. So I'll judge it as such. You also want something professional, so I'll also treat it as such. To begin with, your use of "tulpamancer" and "tulpamancy" and such words. As they are joking terms, they are extremely distracting, especially when used like every five words or so, like some kind of a parrot that just learned a new word. If I wrote a guide and replaced every instance of "tulpa" with "tupper" or "tupperware", that would be about the same. Your exercises don't use these words and they read so much better. You also basically didn't change much in the most problematic exercises. Until the necessary changes are done, I can't and won't approve this. Please re-read like, the last few messages I have written about the exercises, because the problems are still the same and my suggestions are still the same. You basically didn't fix the problems and then just decided to add more text that had more problems, so you're making this a long and difficult project to all of us to handle. About why I thought your system of hiding the exercises with the tag was far superior to this long list: it was much shorter when you looked at it, so less intimidating. People will definitely be put off by 89 pages. It was also easy to read the titles and open up an exercise that sounded interesting. It was also easy to close the ones you didn't want to read and jump to another one without having to scroll through a lot of text that you didn't want to read. It was a smart system that made use of the platform you made the guide for, a forum. And it's always great when you use the features offered to you for a better experience. Though there's nothing wrong with also having a version that is just the text laid out in the open. Some might prefer that – and it definitely becomes easier to print, if someone wants that. Or copypaste. What is annoying is the cross references from one section to another, though. More random thoughts: In your exercises, you write the category part with a lower case letter but the relevance underneath with a capitalized letter. It… Really bugs me? Titles also have weird capitalization sometimes. Do and is are normal verbs and you're not following the form of title capitalization that would leave short words uncapitalized. So why aren't they capitalized? I also decided to use the tags that hide the text in this review, because your text is long and my review is long. There's a ton of stuff. It'll be difficult to read probably, so I'm hoping this will make it a bit easier to take in as chunks. Taking it in all at once is probably too much. I'm splitting it into three parts: pre-exercises, exercises and post-exercises. I tried not to quote too much because that'd be even more text, but it does mean the context might be slightly lost, so I suggest following the guide at the same time. Now let's see if I have to double post. Before the exercises stuff: [hidden] What is with the parenthesis? Do I want to be a tulpa? I either am or am not, I can't become one if I'm not one. This makes no sense. uh why are we reading your guide then The whole what is a tulpa section is a bit odd in a guide, which is why I'd suggest submitting it as an article and linking it. Like, there's good stuff there and some interesting thoughts, but it is ultimately your opinions and experiences with [citation needed] sprinkled in. Not exactly something for a guide, but an interesting look at this nevertheless. Write a simpler bit for the guide that has less theories from your part and then be like "here's more of my thoughts of tulpas and how they connect to other things" or something? So I'm not really going to pick it apart, because well, I don't really pick apart what I see as an article unless it says things I really am against? The community part is even odder and has really no reason to be in a tulpa guide. This is about creating tuppers, isn't it? A newcomer shouldn't read about a community in a guide. Especially when this is, again, your opinions and experiences. After people in this community called you out on certain things, so it even tastes salty. You already have some terminology at the end, you don't need a chapter saying "lol these words I hate are weeeeird and these words I like are totes the ones used in the community and are approved!". If you post this somewhere else, like on your tumblr blog or something if you have one and it actually might be an introduction to someone? Well, there's some merit to having a chapter like this, but it's out of place here. But consider if you really want to present your opinions and experiences as a fact in a chapter like this. Hahaha, in your dreams buddy, in your dreams. (also probably in the next paragraph should be capitalized as it starts the sentence, also I use dirty murkan English so everything is practice, but practice is the noun and practise is the verb. You want the noun there, not the verb. You should check your entire guide to see if you're using the correct form.) "Brain family" was literally made like maybe a week ago and you're already claiming it's a staple in the communities? These aren't bad though. Consider putting them somewhere else in your guide. (though I'd disagree with the definition of a soulbond you use in your guide: the early communities of crazies aka soulbonds were very much the kind that believed these were the REAL CHARACTER from AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE or ANOTHER PLANET or something and THEIR SOUL had BONDED to THEIR OWN SOUL, hence the name. Another redefined term in other whatever communities? Using the word soulbond here is just out of place and weird, and could be cut out and replaced with, you know, something that isn't this word to say the same exact thing.) >Tulpa.Info is the leading resource for a psychological approach to the Tulpae (lol for the plural and it shouldn't even be a plural in this case) Phenomenon. Like gee, maybe it's the entire reason was created? The meta/psychology debate part is weird when posting on Fits better in some other community maybe, but not here. Switching part isn't wrong exactly, but you already talk about switching later on in the guide. Why here? To parrot or not to parrot, the point of sentience, these are solid things you should keep and move into your guide somewhere. Come on. And you contradict yourself when the whole paragraph is read. Belief and trust are important. This isn't how you get them. "Oh you gotta do it but don't do it because the GAT will chew me out if I don't write this out teehee". I think you'd do better writing about building trust and belief than how TRUST AND BELIEF ARE IMPORTANT. Major fucking doubt-shaming, Batman! You can't avoid doubt. Doubt is natural. Saying doubt is bad and that you should feel bad for feeling it is not helpful. Focus on how doubt might happen and how to get over it rather than saying DON'T DO IT NO DON'T THINK OF THE PINK ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM NOO WHY DID YOU DO IT. The other versus parts are good and should be included. Few odd parts though: No. It doesn't. "It" never was "working on it" in the first place. You are your unconscious thoughts. Uh, what does this mean exactly? You use a lot of that imagination to make a tupper, but I guess what you're trying to say is that they're about as imaginary as the assumed host reader of this guide? Onwards to the 4th chapter. Mostly good, weird hiccups here and there. Uh. Could be. Not will. ??????? Can be. Might be. Could be. Not will. They could. They won't, necessarily. Probably will. But not "will". A friend or friends? Typo here yeah? Why capitalize sex? Most hosts have tried creating a tulpa for sex? That's how this part reads with the rest of the paragraph. I'm not sure if you have done any studies to figure out the reason why people have created tuppers, and pretty sure "just sex" isn't all that high up in the list looking at the surveys. Are you trying to say most hosts have had sex with tuppers? Hard to say what the numbers are, but maybe. Why not more, if they think they can handle it? I sure did more than an hour every day when I started out. Yeah uh, we kinda moved away from x amount of time until y should happen way back in the day because it wasn't very good, because some people are faster and others are slower. [citation needed]. Cancerous mindset alert. No. No it doesn't, because "it" doesn't have a will. Why capitalize tsundere? No, they don't. We might. The tulpa might. Are you form-shaming?! Nope. What's with this the subconscious the subconscious crap? What if the tulpa's personality, listen, grows on its own as the tulpa grows? Were you born with a personality or did your THE SUBCONSCIOUS pull out a complete personality out of its ass somehow? Why can't a tulpa choose their own form? Why do you keep shoving your opinions and experiences down our throats as facts? It could. It might not. It could also be extremely distracting. They might. Not will. Some people are slow. Don't make them think they're super abnormal, because it won't really help them. "It could even take months" says the same thing without making it sound like they're bad. No. Nope no no holy shit no. This. This is the you shoving your opinions and experiences down our throats as facts, and this one is malicious. Actively dangerous. Definite cancerous mindset here. Your beliefs shape a lot about when it comes to creating tulpas. Give them a mindset like this where you say it will absolutely 100% happen and it will. Because of you. Tupper communities tend to love drama and attention, so it's no surprise that you hear stories like this. Could be real, could be not real, but a lot of members are going to hear these stories and then think this has to happen. And honestly, trying to help these people? They never listen, because they usually are in it for the attention rather than actually trying to fix their issues. So I take their stories with a grain of salt. Sure, this could happen. They could end up having serious issues. No matter how hard you try, sometimes stuff just goes wrong. But it doesn't have to happen. It shouldn't happen. Approach with a healthy mindset and understanding that these were just stories and not real memories or events that really happened, and make sure the tulpa understands it too.[/hidden] Exercises: [hidden] Why does this line still exist? Are you saying it isn't? Guess everyone using it for that is just plain wrong because meditation is a religious thing and these things aren't, right? You should just cut all the text of you trying to explain meditation because you don't seem to be getting it and you just make it worse. Just go to the exercise straight if you can't help but have to tell us your opinions and experiences on something. Actually, not sure what you mean here. Like a video of a fireplace they use when they don't have a fireplace? Why at Christmas though I am confused. Do you? It's anecdotal, I guess. But not necessarily true, as it hasn't been proven. Do we have to know? Saying that the tulpas might like it more than the hosts or vice versa isn't completely useless, though. Does everything have to be about you? Was this so important you just had to tell us? I got another pro tip for you, which you could add if you care or think it's interesting. You should compare the bones of other animals to your own. Figure out where the bone of a certain animal is on you or where a bone you have is on an animal, if you happen to share the same bone. Compare a bird wing and your own arm, for example. Very similar, even if the bones are different lengths and such. I would also make the suggestion of using other kinds of animals here, not just humans. Actually, fast readers tend to not, which you point out in your pro tip. It's weird that you assume people don't already know how to do this – not all do, but it's not such a rare skill. "You probably do when you concentrate on what you read" or something like that? You did not edit this at all. Just put some bullshit explanation about how you know the best and it's totally this thing you guise. lol [citation needed] Please actually read what I wrote about this exercise in the past how many posts if you want to keep it in your guide. This is all pretty weird considering that you wrote earlier that a tulpa might not want these things. You tend to contradict yourself a lot, I feel. What. [citation needed] also there's nothing esoteric about this as it's symbolism. This is so unnecessary. What are you smoking. Is this actually true? Like are there studies? That's not even a word. Uh. Is this symbolism? It doesn't sound like it. Please stop presenting your opinions and experiences as facts in your guide. Still doesn't belong here, please remove it. Also pretty sure witchcraft or following teachings of other religions goes against some religions. You can respect plenty without trusting. This exercise is still just "blind belief" in a new set of pants and has nothing about learning to trust, instead just trusting because your tulper neeeeeds it shame on you. Uhhh what Please don't claim your opinions and personal experiences as facts. This exercise could use some work without sounding like, well, that. I'm sure it could have its uses if reworded. No, your word doesn't really sound too good. It all still sounds very strange. Maybe a lead up, "if your tulpa has problems thinking and it feels like they're not quite strong as you…" or something to that effect? Also thinkinking So Push, such P, wow. Still sounds like walking a pet. Guess you decided to go with it, though. Not very scientific, that. Why not in real life? I know, spaghetti and all, but it could happen. Figuratively. Not literally. Might want to make that pretty clear because you know. This isn't magic. Nothing wrong here, just amazed you didn't say system or tulpamancer or something. Looks good in use, thumbs up. Thank you for this important nugget of information.[/hidden] After the exercises: [hidden] Definitely more likely. But saying they can't do it is only going to make them not try. This is weird when it's in an exercise about how to fight off intrusive thoughts. You probably mean like, drugs used for recreation? Definitely don't just cut all your drugs on your own as some might be necessary. Though doctors probably aren't too keen on monitoring your recreational drug use, especially if said drugs are illegal. Even if you can't think of a way, they might think of a way. Maybe encourage that than saying they're stuck until x, even if they happen to end up being stuck until x. At least they will try and trying might lead to a breakthrough. Always encourage that. This seems more like material for that potential article about what a tulpa is. A lot of opinions and personal experiences presented as a fact. Or, they might. Because writers are different kinds of people with different personalities, skills and beliefs. Who wouda thot. Does it? There's lots of people in the autism spectrum in these communities. They often are the opposite. This is legit good advice. Same thing about this as young tuppers controlling intrusive thoughts. Worded a bit better this time, but if you do something about the other line, maybe you can do something about this, too. Though it's also possible that older tulpas can't help, either. You never know what happens. All we can do is wish them luck. uh uhhhh uhhhhhhhh? [citation needed] Placebo is always a valid thing, though the host can of course do the same thing. Definitely if you implant such thoughts into their heads. Nice to know you have timed a sizable amount of different hosts and tulpas to get such statistics, right? Tuppers can keep themselves stable and active by doing things. Why should they only expect someone else to pay attention to them? Of course, it's not exactly healthy for a person to be alone and ignored, but I'm sure a tulpa can also figure out ways to not be ignored. Though choosing to not be aware anymore if they are only ignored certainly is a peaceful way to go out. Doesn't always happen and that is normal, too. Might want to add that, because every time new people read something like this, they panic if they don't get these signs. Things that cause hallucinations might help you have hallucinations?! Really? Oh good to know that this has been tested. You wouldn't want to claim that untested things are true, right? Why? [citation needed] Why? Untrue. This too varies. Others don't feel it, some do. About the other effects of medication, I don't know enough to know if these are true or not. Maybe someone else knows better. Again, we don't do hour/week/month/year counts and compare them to progress. Some people are slower, some people are faster. That's fine and it's normal. You shouldn't make people feel abnormal about something that is completely normal to them. Is this really common? First I've really heard of it. Like, sure, at this point they rarely are vocal, but can't say I've ever seen anyone say that something like this totally happened. They could also have and do those before. Mhhh nope. The "host" is not a role. This still exists, huh. What is a primary thinker? The bolded line should not exist. Maybe rename this to primary thinker syndrome and say it is something some people go through where one person in a body is dominant over else mentally and the rest should try to strengthen themselves like, asap. Uh what. How would it be an unconscious suggestion if they are doing it consciously? Just because the host doesn't "hear" it doesn't make it something unconscious or coming from this mysterious THE SUBCONSCIOUS. Where's full body possession, yo. That's a term we use that you don't have anywhere here. Both of these are full body possession, though different levels of uh, body connection, I guess. What is the state the tulpa is normally in? Might want to make a note that this is what .info usually means when using the word "switching" in this context. Belief is not needed, sure. But you aren't supposed to stop questioning if it's real if you are having issues with that. What else can people do if they question things? Maybe they should instead wonder why they question things if they haven't questioned these things before they had a tulpa? What has changed? Again? Argh. It's not a "thing". Your unconscious thoughts are just thoughts you aren't conscious about. There is no magical mystery THE SUBCONSCIOUS that is a different place or an entity. Use unconscious.[/hidden] I feel like I should end this with your own words that sum up a lot of my feelings about this guide.
  7. The tulpa communities are the epitome of maturity. Also sheesh 89 pages. That's going to take a long time to get through, so you're going to have to wait on the review. Few things I can say right off the bat: the linking between forums and Google docs is very annoying. I know why, because you ran out of space. I would almost suggest reposting the guide as a new thread so you can have as many posts as you need at the start to post what you want. Your previous way of handling the exercises was far superior to this. A quick look at your "what is a tulpa" thing that I didn't read in much detail yet as it's late for me, are you sure this has anything to do with your guide and shouldn't be an article instead that you maybe link at the start of your guide? I can also see some titles that might break the meta rule, but I'll tell that for sure when I get there.
  8. Get good enough at full body possession and it will be identical in feeling to whoever is in control, switching included or not. Switching also does not require one to "associate with the body". Switching is all about what the one not in control does. Doesn't have to be disproved. It just means you folks have a lot of practice left to be able to be properly independent. About roles, what was said above. Well, I don't think you'll create a TULPA HITLER by saying there are "roles", but I do think it will limit people because they get the mindset that these roles exist.
  9. You just sounded more upset than sarcastic, there.
  10. Wow Reisen, this is going to go really off-topic but I was wondering if someone was going to make similar arguments about family. I thought about it and came to the conclusion that family means so many different things to different people. I could write about it a lot, but it seems like a really cultural thing? Like to some, it's all about blood being thicker than water and all, but to me, I don't think it really implies being one or even being close. It's a very physical connection to me: people I am related to (and this isn't even a must, though it works for many) and people who raised me/was raised with (and I guess who I raised, but eh). I guess here you are given the chance to move out as soon as you're of age without having to worry about money too much, so everyone pretty much does it and then you're on your own. In some other cultures that would be unheard of and you're expected to stick together no matter what. And I guess that's why I don't consider Roswell a part of my "family". That isn't a bad thing, a "family" is more of a thing that happens whether I like it or not, it's not some peak relationship status to me. We're friends and we live together. Though I guess you could argue that sharing the same body, we are definitely related in some way… ps we should totally call ourselves tupperware containers make it happen please We could also use "group" if you really need to refer to everyone: it's not a special term, you wouldn't say "I am a group" but more like "the rest of the group agrees too".
  11. You could use nicknames to hide your identity. Like, I know this might be a surprise to some but I'm not called Sands in real life? Don't tell anyone though okay this was a secret I am going to tell only you. A lot of tuppers go by their real (uh well they don't exactly have birth certificates with those names but you know), but they don't have to! They could even have like 5 internet handles for every one and never use the same one in the same place. Internet makes us anonymous if we so wish and I think that's great. Also uh are you using the same "system name" here and in other places while you're also telling your names here while keeping them secret in other places? Because someone could find out if you do share information and connect it with a "system name" or something.
  12. I do agree with Reisen. And I think tulpa001 might be saying the same thing, in case you're feeling left out that I don't agree with you? Oh yeah it gets confusing, doesn't it. Saw their charts once and cried myself to sleep. Probably. This I think I disagree with. If the term is "system", I find that very dehumanizing. The rest of these points should also work for the other terms. In a community about being many people in a single body, why do we want to lump all these different people into a single group? I think that gives people the wrong idea, that we should stick together and be one despite being many. Every time I have been in a debate with the people who are very pro "system" and have their own "systems", all members of the "system" will take part in the debate from the exact same angle with the exact same opinions. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe they weren't tuppers and it was just roleplaying. Or maybe this idea of being one makes people think they should be one and is a bad mindset that doesn't allow for much independence? Us and them. Those of us sharing our minds with others are "this" and those who don't are "that". The great thing about early when there were just a handful of people with actual vocal tulpas and the rest of us were still trying to get there, it never felt like there was a gap between us no matter if we had tuppers or not. There were no words to separate us. I understand that the other communities are older and probably had a rougher time with "outsiders", so maybe they wanted that kind of a wall. But do we? Then there's the special snowflakes who just want a fancy word to describe themselves just because. That's pretty silly. Especially silly are system names (oh no we went back to "system") that remind me of people being in "guilds" in games that did not have a guild system. Sounds like kids playing make believe, you know? The advantage is that sometimes it'll be easier to call this lump of people. Is it worth it?
  13. Yes, being different and trendy as the first big modern tupper community using the words we've used for like, the past 5 years and more now. Here is the glossary if you have forgotten. These are the terms we are wanting updated definitions on. Some wish to change the terms, but I'm not arguing for changing of terms because they have been used here since the beginning and I don't feel fine with changing terms of a community I came into later. Someone wants to do that, sure, they'll have to do it the long and natural route, which is fine. But we're not changing them for the sake of changing them, we just want to update the definitions. Should we have every single term that has ever existed listed? No. Why should we? We don't need to use every single word someone comes up with or uses. No one wants a glossary that tries to include everything, getting definitions and words from multiple communities that might not even share the same definitions between them. Imagine what a clusterfuck it is for someone to see that and be expected to not only learn all those words, but to try to use them to communicate. Put them in the glossary and you're saying "yeah we use these words, you should learn them". But we don't need most of those words. More is not necessarily good. You want your everything and the kitchen sink included, you are free to browse the glossary that is exactly that and a huge mess because of that. Seriously just look at how many words there are for everything unnecessary.
  14. Might not be the greatest idea to use a word that people who thought SASUKE IS REALLY HERE FROM THE OTHER UNIVERSE AND IT'S TOTALLY REAL GUYS AND HE'S MY HUSBAND NOW!!! used. But what do I know. I told you. Maybe you're not very familiar with the idea of constructed worlds, but you don't get "detail" by just imagining how something looks. You can imagine a huge sprawling city, but that doesn't tell us any of what is going on behind the surface. It doesn't have to be a world or a country. It doesn't have to be huge in size. But you have to have more to tell us than how things just look. This is a whole new thing. It might be Earth, but let's say it's a village that doesn't exist – you're creating it right now, after all. What kind of customs are there? What kind of people live there? Is there a religion? Is there a new language? Have you made up grammar and words for it yet? What do they eat? Do they use money, what kind? What kind of clothing do they wear? How do they get this clothing, do they make it themselves? Where do they get the materials? Etc. You can't really create a good conworld if you either answer no or don't have an answer in the first place. Gets even more fun when you start creating an entirely different world without anything from Earth. You will be creating entire ecosystems. You don't just want to design an imaginary critter's looks and be fine with that, no. That's just the surface (and you need to know what this critter does to justify what you give it). What do they eat? Remember, this isn't Earth, so you will most likely be creating multiple new species of plants and animals here – or whatever exists in your world. Do they have predators, how are those like? Where do they live? How long do they live? How do they breed? How long are they pregnant? Are they pregnant? Are they mammals or something else? Does your world have classifications for their animals that aren't anything even close to Earth? Not every part of a world will be as detailed, as everyone has their own parts they enjoy. I enjoy the ecosystems the most. Someone like Tolkien liked history and languages, so Middle Earth has a lot of that but isn't completely lacking in everything else. And I'm sure you know this place has a lot of lore behind it, like it or not. A paracosm could be a wonderland. But a paracosm is not a synonym for a wonderland – not even a "detailed wonderland". Nothing says you have to have a paracosm to be a mental place for you to visit, while a wonderland's definition is pretty much exactly that. They don't mean the same thing. I swear, every time someone brings this up it becomes a tl;dr from me. Funny thing is, the owner of a website can decide exactly what they want to put on their website without asking you. It really is their decision, though you can try to attempt to sway it with your arguments. The community can of course get angry about decisions they dislike and if things go well, maybe there will be a compromise. Or maybe there won't be. Not much you can do about that, if things go that badly. Unless you think that they'll listen eventually if you keep trying. Could work. There's enough tulpa communities as is that already including everything and the kitchen sink. There is no reason for us to be the same and it only hurts us in the long run. Like okay maybe it can't hurt us much more than those interviews of complete loonies, but it certainly won't help to include words that we don't want to be used because they don't fit this place or because they sound so ridiculous it makes us all look like we're waving Roman candles while shouting magic missile in public, truly believing we're actual wizards.
  15. It is not. Paracosm is a detailed imaginary world (read: detailed does not necessarily mean big). Most wonderlands do not have enough detail to be paracosms (flora, fauna, cultures, languages, etc.), nor does the definition of a paracosm imply that you have to actually visit in your mind at any point. Tokien's constructed world Middle Earth could be seen as an example of a paracosm. I can say that easily and without hesitation despite not knowing if he actually visited this place in his mind, because that part doesn't matter. Your conworld could also be the inspiration for your wonderland, though. A wonderland (mindscape has also been used, it's not awful) implies an imaginary world you visit in your mind. We are not every other plural community nor should we try to be. If we all were the same, why have different communities? PS. tulpamancy is a joke term: your "tulpamancy system" sounds twice as ridiculous as both terms on their own. About coming up with new terms instead of using the old ones: Sure, you can do that. But you don't do that by replacing old words in a glossary with new words, especially when most people probably won't even look at the glossary in the first place (but it's good to have, to link to people who want to know). It took a really long time to weed "tulpae" out, and you still see some people insist on using it. But that's about what you have to do if you want to change words. Definitely possible.
  16. Blame "wonderland" on the guy who had a tulpa named "Alice". There's silly words. We don't want more silly words.
  17. We are a tulpa community, not a plurality community. Therefore we want to focus on tulpa terms and not plurality/whatever terms. We're also and not the other tulpa communities: we want to be ourselves, not everything else. Concise, simple. That's the aim. Is there a term we desperately need that is lacking from this community? Then you consider adopting a term. We don't want to add terms because "other communities use them" or "this other community has it in their glossary". System is completely unnecessary as a term and only smells of special snowflake syndrome. "I too want to have a fancy system name!" "I am so different compared to these people who don't have other people in their heads!" Can't we just be people and not something that sounds so unorganic and ridiculous? Like we were supposed to be that step of completely normal people being interested in something like this and making it sound like there was something scientific and serious behind it. "System" does not sound serious. It sounds childish and like pretend. You might have seen it in other communities. However, it was a term coined by a member (, really, they were more active in the IRC than on the forum at the time) so it is an adopted term in that case. I never quite understood the exact definition, but I can try to dig around for the definition the creator used. I can remember them posting a thing explaining it, so it might still be around somewhere. If you see switching and possession in other communities, they most likely adopted those terms from us, too. A lot of other communities dealing with multiple people in one body haven't really had better words than fronting/co-fronting for these kinds of these.
  18. Here, quick link to the glossary. Yep. We can't have every single definition ever because then it's an even bigger mess. And really, most of these terms have an easy definition but people want to redefine them because they want to be able to do or be something they are not. Someone might use your for you're, but that doesn't mean it means the same thing or should have the definition in a dictionary. Someone might use sentient to mean sapient, but those too have different meanings. Someone might use bemused to mean amused, but it does not mean that. Sometimes people just use words wrong. Or use alternative facts, I think that's the trendy term for it. And let's not get started on how "literally" can now literally (hah) be used to mean figuratively. This is what you get when you start adding brain drain of the masses to dictionary definitions. Having a word mean the complete opposite, this sure is a time to be alive.
  19. A glossary is going to need good visibility. Right now the one we have is hidden and not good, so a new one should have an easy link somewhere in sidebars and whatever else. It should not be a free-for-all seeing that this has been causing rampant redefinitions in say, the irc communities where it is impossible for someone to be there to correct people all the time. definitions trump all other definitions from other communities in This is to be kept in mind as you write definitions. Terms like "system" should not be used to describe the definitions, use "person" or "people" as fit instead. Host and tulpa can also be used when it would be easier to understand and shorter to write than an explanation. "Tulpae" and other stupid plurals have to be changed to tulpas on glossary entries that otherwise need no changes, too. Suggestions: About the term "host". It is used to mean "original" here these days, and that is the most important thing we can get out of it. It is what people care about more, knowing who is the oldest, basically. If we want to describe who created who, we can say that: x created y. A tulpa does not become a host by creating another tulpa or being the one in "control". And a host might not have actually created any of their tulpas. Being the host should not imply any of these things. A body without a host can exist as well, if something happened to the host – but honestly, no one in this community stays dead outside the actual body dying, so who knows. Host: The original/first person in the body, or something like that. Could add "often the creator of the other tulpa/tulpas in the body, but not always". The term "tulpa" should similarly only mean everything else that comes after. They might not have been created, and they can of course create tuppers as we all know. Nothing stops them: they're just people and it's good for us to get newcomers to understand this, too. Tulpa: The people in the body that have come to existence after the host. Often created intentionally, but not always? That's the same as the end of host uhh so maybe a rewording. Switching, you know what it is LostOne, so don't try to add in every definition from every other tulpa/whatever mindbuddy site, as this is and we are working on a glossary, not an everything glossary. It is true that host and tulpa don't matter much in switching. In fact, if you consider that a host would be currently in control of the body and the tulpa is in the wonderland like say, watering flowers and not paying any attention to the physical senses, wouldn't that be the host possessing and the tulpa switching? Taking your definition, we could actually remove the parts and possibly add them in the end. I also fixed it slightly because it fell flat towards the end. Switching: When the person in control of the body dissociates and disconnects completely from the body and instead focuses on imaginary senses that should be felt as if they were real. Often a skill hosts are practicing, due to many tulpas being good with dissociation and imaginary senses from the start? (that's not even needed though, I feel – but if you feel like it would help?) Possession should probably be something in a similar vein: Changing of body controllers, whether it is just a single part like an arm (partial possession) or the entire body (full body possession). Usually used to particularly mean that the controller of the body is currently a tulpa, due to hosts often being in control of the physical bodies. Proxying could also use a change in that it's not just the host relaying messages from the tulpa, it could be anyone doing it to any other person in the head really.
  20. Sure. Unfortunately, in your guide, you say nothing about this being a state of a young tulpa. From the "dominance switching" for example: >The main benefit is that the tulpa's self awareness should shoot up massively during the experiment. A tulpa's self awareness should shoot up massively. This suggests that the tulpa – which could be a fully matured tulpa, as your guide says nothing about it for being tuppers you just created – is somehow less self aware already. Extremely poor wording. And again, there are no "mental roles of a host and tulpa". Incorrect. It can, especially if the host and tulpa have made switching to be some kind of mythical thing to do that will solve all their problems. However, it might not, or a tulpa might already do things without the need for a switch – this is the state a tulpa should aim for, what we pretty much consider the definition of a tulpa in We decided to not come up with a "lesser" term for a tulpa that had yet to get this far so hosts wouldn't think their beginning tulpas couldn't achieve things of a full tulpa until they started calling them tulpas or something. That doesn't mean you can think you're at the peak when you're just vocal, when there is so much more for you to be a truly independent person. A tulpa should be completely aware of their self without doing anything. A tulpa should be completely aware of the senses when they share the senses of the body – and at the very least, full body possession should feel exactly like switching to a tulpa. If it doesn't, the host most likely has more to learn about letting go properly or there's some mental bullshit keeping them from thinking it can't be as good. It happens, but it doesn't mean it has to happen. Kinda what we aim for here buddy. Sure. However, we do not want such a concept here. If you feel like you must put it in your guide, make it a state that is something undesirable. That it might be the beginning, but by becoming stronger, it can be left behind which is what we try to aim for in this community. Sure. Again, this is not what we want as the end goal in Saying that it is the norm is only bringing in a toxic mindset that people have to work really hard to get rid of. Please don't. Nope. First of all, let's ditch your term of "dominance", because this word already means so much. If a tulpa says they're possessing, we all know what they mean. If a host says they're working on switching with their tulpa, we all know what they mean. If I say I am dominant (I assume this is how you'd use the word in the sentence because "dominance" makes so sense), it means… What exactly? My sexual preference? My personality? You are also now suggesting it should mean whether or not I am a primary thinker in this head. I could probably be dominant in bed if I wanted to bother. And I'm sure many would consider my personality to be dominant, as I don't roll over easily and let people walk over me. I probably wouldn't be in GAT if I had such a personality, because you definitely need some force here. You could consider me dominant. But I am not dominant in the way you suggest. Sure. Has nothing to do with much of anything we have talked about. When we say tulpa has to be self aware at all times, it's very much how we would say a host has to be self aware at some times. If they lose their train of thought or something, sure, that's normal. That's us being equal in these ways, a tulpa is really no better than the host (unless the host is a real scatterbrain but the tupper isn't, but they can try to train to be better). But you imply that it is somehow a normal state for a tulpa to be less self aware. yada yada but a young tulpa yes they probably are, but this is not a guide made only for young tulpas There. Are. No. Roles. Saying a "host role" or a "tulpa role" means absolutely nothing! I have no idea what these roles are! Do you expect people to just inherently know? What if they don't? There is no concept of roles in – AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE. A tulpa doesn't have to be in a certain role just because they are a tulpa. A host doesn't have to be in a certain role just because they are a host. They could do whatever they want based on their own circumstances. You can try to push these roles on us, but we don't want them. You can take them. They are toxic. Now you want it to be some kind of symbolism? Sure. Define our roles, then. Make sure we don't get the idea this is what we should be, that there are inherent roles affixes to us because of what we are. Make sure you're talking about young tulpas especially if you talk about them feeling less self aware, and make sure they try to bring something from the experience with them so they can stop doing the exercises eventually, when they feel stronger. Boy. You think that I started this whole tupper thing WELL GOLLY GEE I'LL MAKE EM TULPERS AND THEY'LL BE SO GOOD AT EVERYTHING AND JUST LIKE ME IN EVERYTHING and out popped a tupper and I was fine with everything? I didn't. I started out at the bottom, unsure, questioning. Questioning pretty much everything actually. I wondered, I experimented, I learned. Even obvious signs went way over my head because WELL IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING. It didn't take a day or a minute to come to a conclusion. It took a long time of constantly being around this sloppy fart and learning who he was and what he could do. That's when you can say whether or not you trust someone. That's when you can say you believe in them. And everyone else can achieve the same, because we're nothing special. We're just two people, just like anyone else. Can't stop on a too serious note though. "How dare this forum made by lovers of Coca Cola only allow discussion of Coca Cola with every other soft drink only given one board, because the whole forum was originally made to talk about Coca Cola and only Coca Cola, as there was no other place where they could do it without lovers of other sodas constantly butting in?!"
  21. It can happen, sure. However, especially with young tulpas, it's more about not being experienced or mature enough. Also thinking like that is an effective piece of symbolism: you are taking control when you initiate a conversation, thus you seem stronger and are able to take control easily. But as it is written, it becomes negative symbolism. It's not saying that it could happen, it is saying this is what happens. It's not telling you a tip about how you might be able to make yourself feel strong mentally, it's telling you that you are weaker. This is not good and what will most definitely lead into people thinking this is normal and how things should be. It is not. There is no primary thinker. You are the thinker of your thoughts. You have done possession and you can do it. What is keeping you from doing it as easily as some other time are your own thoughts holding your back. But don't let them hold you back, because you got this. Ditto. I am me, the tupper is him, we both think and we don't have to share those thoughts with each other for them to exist. I should probably be the "primary thinker" in OP's eyes, but really? If anything, I'm the one that is worse at taking back control. Always have had one of those tuppers who need no host and can do whatever he puts his mind into, so really, it's all in the mind. So harmful mindsets like these should not be shared.
  22. They might. They might not. Both answers might be wrong and it might not be a tulpa saying it at all – or the host might at some point think it isn't a tulpa even if it is, leading to some dangerous doubt spirals. It might be wise. Still, you should address the issue of blindly believing. I have written of where that has led before. Just trusting or believing is a slippery slope and I would like that gone from as many guides as possible due to how much damage such mindsets have caused. Such an opinion does not have any reason to be in this guide. I can't say I've met any person who meditates who does it for religious reasons or thinks meditation has to be religious. As stated below, most do it for focus. Or because it just feels good to them to be in such a state. Modern psychologists do not refer to it as such – if they do, you want to ask them what they mean with that and proceed based on their response. Here's the questions for you: What do you mean with "THE SUBCONSCIOUS"? Why would you not use "unconscious thoughts", if this is what you mean? THE SUBCONSCIOUS is not a separate entity which you seem to treat it as. This is the new age-y bit. "Subconscious" as a term means nothing due to people redefining it and meaning different things. It's why it's no longer really used in more scientific texts. Yes, there's symbolism. No, I don't care that it has symbolism. Is what I say not clear or are you just not reading? Symbolism is fine and dandy. If your entire guide was symbolism it would be an issue, but this is a list of various exercises, some of which might very well be symbolism. I feel that in your other symbolism exercises, you have made it quite clear that we are just imagining things and seeing where it goes. In THE SUBCONSCIOUS exercise, you make THE SUBCONSCIOUS into this super special entity with your words, which it is not. As symbolism and self hypnosis and such, yes, it's effective! I don't even believe in THE SUBCONSCIOUS as a separate entity bullshit yet I've gotten some interesting results treating it as such. But I think that in this exercise, you need to start with "imagine that all your unconscious thoughts and feelings have formed a separate entity we will now refer to as the subconscious" or something like that. Or reworded. "Host role" and "tulpa role" mean nothing. What I consider a "tulpa role" you might not consider one. The issue of the exercise is also making it feel like a tulpa is supposed to be less aware and such when they are not "dominance switching". This is a bad mindset to drill into people's heads. "Could help a young and undeveloped tulpa feel stronger" or some such might be more like it, but honestly, not needed? The metaphysics forum was added because people believing into that were bleeding onto this forum and being a bother in scientific conversations, yes. It could have been banned outright (honestly should have), but the admin of the time was a nice guy who didn't want to make anyone sad. As to what kind of metaphysical talk is fine on the on-topic parts of the forum, it would have to be tulpa-related for one and a scientific look at that – scientific explanations as to why something might happen or be possible and such. There's not too much overlap. Metaphysical can also act as the metaphysical forum lounge so according to the rules, you'd put that there. But no one really cares about the lounge that much. Mostly, keep the metaphysical stuff out of on-topic tulpa boards. Let's take a look at your list. >(1) Proxying is when your tulpa tells you to do stuff and you do it. Explains what proxying means. You might never do proxying and that's not the issue. Nothing wrong here. >(10) Trance possession is when the host becomes unthinking and unresponsive while you are possessing. A term that is not really used in the tulpa community, but it explains something that might happen. Due to the many explanations you have about possession and such in this list, there is no danger of assuming that a host is supposed to become unthinking and unresponsive when possessing. >(7) Dominance is the state of the primary thinker. Possession is easier when you become primary. You say the primary thinker is dominant. What is even a primary thinker? Why would possession be easier when you become this? That's just hogwash. In, a host and tulpa are seen as equals – which they very well tend to be when the tulpa is old and developed enough. There is no "primary" to us. Telling people that there will be a "primary thinker" who is "dominant" is not going to help these people create independent tuppers who need no man. Uh, hosts. Something. Re:humor: I don't care one way or another. Here's some reasons why someone might think it's unnecessary. 1. A person might be looking for real help about the difficulty, but they don't get it. 2. It's an extra line that everyone will just skip over because of that. 3. You complained about not having enough words, this is where you get words. By removing unnecessary ones, and these are the "easiest" unnecessary words to remove in your guide.
  23. >(1) Ask your tulpa if they are a person. >(2) Trust whatever answer they give. The exercise as given. No matter what is meant, no matter how you try to say "well trust doesn't mean you belieeeve", it is difficult to look at this and not see "just believe in them". Trust is important, no one will argue with that. Just trusting blindly gets you where blindly believing gets you once you start to question things. You should rethink what you want to say in this exercise. >Meditation is a religious thing. It was created to do something spiritual. I have absolutely no idea how to meditate properly. But that's religious stuff. From the meditation part. You tell me. I am fine with it being self hypnosis. Please reword it so it is so and not some fancy way of talking to your THE SUBCONSCIOUS for real guise. The symbolism can stay, what I want is recognizing that it is symbolism. What tradition? This tradition does not exist in If you write a guide for, you have to take that into account. It is how we've shortened the word here for a long time, but I guess you haven't been around enough to know that. I apologize for the confusion and will try to be clearer next time, but yes, meta stands for metaphysical more often than not here, especially if magic is involved. "Dark arts" still has to go. Magic talk is not to be done in these parts of the forum. Again, from the meta board description: This board is dedicated to members of the community that have adapted to the metaphysical and parapsychological schools of thought. Please keep all discussions on this subject to this board and out of the rest of the forum. You folks have had trouble with this before. Please learn to respect the rules of the forum if you're going to stay. It can happen. You can say it might happen. You're not saying it might happen, you are saying it happens. This is the issue. Please explain the difference between 19 and 20 better in the guide. They are currently confusing/overlapping and while I think I might understand what you mean, it's not clear. This is what I asked for.