Stanford Tulpa Study looking for more participants
(if you're chosen they'll pay for travel and lodging!)

Guide Approval and Parallel Processing
#1
I want to give the following feedback its own thread to properly discuss how people feel about the GAT's reviewing process and how the GAT should approach parallel processing content when reviewing submissions.

Here is the original feedback. It was originally posted in longbow's submission thread:

Quote:I am not a GAT member but I'll add my two cents. I agree with some of what GAT members have said here, but not all of it. Many of their criticisms are based on the idea that your guide includes many things that aren't absolutely necessary for creating a tulpa. This is true - but that is not a bad thing. I do not see any reason why a guide should be boiled down to only the things that are required in order to create a tulpa. Sure, that can shorten the guide and make it take less time and effort to read, but many people are willing to read (or in this case, listen to) longer and more in depth guides, not everyone will only be willing to read a short and basic guide. Also, there are many benefits to longer guides that include things that aren't 100% necessary for tulpa creation. I have found that people often have a faster and easier time creating a tulpa when they have already practiced skills that can come in handy for tulpa creation and have built a good mindset for tulpa creation BEFORE they start creating a tulpa, which is exactly what your guide does. No, nobody needs to do this to create a tulpa, but it definitely helps and is likely to make things faster and easier once you start creation. If you keep a guide to only what is required, these helpful aspects would not be included. Also, if all tulpa guides were kept to only the required basics, they would be much less interesting and diverse, because when you boil down tulpa creation to it's bare bones, it's actually very simple. They would all be saying the exact same things in slightly different wording. There should be diversity among guides, as there is not just one way to create a tulpa, and some ways work better for people than others, so newcomers benefit from having a wide variety of different techniques to read about.

Regarding people's criticisms on mentioning parallel processing - it has not been proven to definitively exist or not exist, so the idea that it shouldn't be included just because it hasn't been proven to exist doesn't make sense. Even tulpas have not been proven to exist in the way that most people in this community think about them. Might as well disapprove every guide on the site because they all assume something exists when it hasn't been proven, right? Some will say that parallel processing doesn't exist because multitasking in the way it is generally thought of has been strongly indicated to be impossible by some studies, but that is not a good argument as parallel processing isn't necessarily the exact same thing as multitasking, all studies on multitasking have had nothing to do with tulpas/plurality, and there is nothing to indicate that being plural doesn't change some things about how the brain works. Creating a tulpa is very similar to learning a new skill, and learning a new skill of course changes certain things about how the brain works. For example, learning to play the piano paves entirely new neural pathways that did not exist before. Why tulpamancy is so often assumed to be an exception baffles me.

I can see why some people have concerns about you saying that "your tulpa is already there", because that isn't always true, but that mindset actually helps tulpa creation. If you assume that your tulpa already exists, that they are conscious and listening to you, this actually helps your tulpa start to exist. The reasons for why this is are complex so I'm not going to explain them here. There is no harm in believing your tulpa is already there even if they aren't, because that belief will make them actually be there faster than they probably would be otherwise.

Your guide is not perfect but I believe it is much more worthy of being approved than most GAT members think. In my opinion the standards for guides are unnecessarily high and specific. Almost nothing is going to be approved at this rate, and I've already seen some people (including myself) who have decided not to submit guides for review solely because of the GAT's standards. I encourage everyone to look at unapproved guides just as much as you do approved guides, as many of them are just as good as those that have been approved. Use your own judgement to decide which guides are good and which aren't, don't rely on the GAT's judgement.

First, the concerns about what GAT members deem as necessary and unnecessary guide content: I personally don't mind the meditation and wonderland content since it is used as part of longbow's creation method. However, some of my peers disagreed. I think it's worth addressing this stance because it can influence the outlook of approval. Making a guideline to say GAT members must keep content specific to a submission's thesis would make it difficult to reject off-topic content and therefore undermine the quality of the review. This guideline would need rewording if this is a desirable solution, however I think a better solution would be for the OP to say they disagree and for the GAT to revote or for both the OP and the GAT to come to a compromise.

As for the process itself: When guide writers submit their drafts, I believe there is a good chance their draft will not pass the first time. The GAT looks at both the advice provided in a submission and how well the draft is written. High quality content can be hidden in a disorganized and hard to read work and some well written submissions can contain questionable advice. Sometimes submissions only have minor errors that can easily fixed, others are weaker drafts that need further revision. I believe working to achieve a well polished guide makes the guide author look good and brings the best out of them. I believe most submissions are capable of achieving approval, it just takes time and patience. Even though it is encouraged to revise submissions as much as possible before submitting them, sometimes a draft badly needs peer review, and it can be extremely difficult to obtain before submitting.

If a guide writer gets feedback they disagree with, they are more than welcome to build a case for why they disagree. The GAT does not consist of writing experts, only volunteers interested in giving feedback.

* * *

Unfortunately, judging parallel processing is solely based on matter of opinion. There are numerous definitions for parallel processing, and GAT members usually go with what they think it means and if that counts as meta or not. I believe this is a reasonable flaw to address and I would like to discuss this to get feedback as well as make the GAT more predictable and consistent.

In regards to reviewing parallel processing content in a submission, I have some questions:
  • Should the GAT reject or approve content related to parallel processing?
  • Should it be required for the guide writer to define parallel processing in their draft?
  • Which definition(s) of parallel processing are acceptable and which ones should be deemed as meta or bad advice?
For defining parallel processing, I believe encouraging the reviewer to ask for clarification would be one solution, but having the OP define it would prevent the need for clarification all together. In regards to the other problems, here are my definition and stance on parallel processing:

Parallel processing is where two or more headmates are able to perform two different tasks that require undivided attention at the same time. An example would be a host solving math problems while the tulpa writes an essay in wonderland. I believe this isn't possible despite claims saying otherwise. I have not heard of any non parallel-processing systems suddenly achieve parallel processing, and the claims I have heard sound like they were the result of something else, such as the system being able to effectively multitask fronting and wonderlanding.

Since it is the GAT's job to keep guide material consistent with Tulpa.info's scientific approach, I would reject the definition I have of parallel processing and consider it meta until more evidence emerges that it can be replicated by previously non parallel-processing systems. I don't believe asking if tulpas are real or not is relevant to this issue since the techniques written in guides can be replicated. The reason for why these techniques can be replicated is still unknown, however I am unsure that parallel processing can be replicated based on how I defined it.
I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love Hippos! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.
My other head-mates have their own account now.
Temporary Log | Chat | Yay!
Reply

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to

#2
Firstly, my system agrees wholeheartedly and passionately with the quote you presented to such an extent that I had to kick everyone into dormancy to avoid unnecessary emoting in this statement.

We also have developed guides that have been seeded throughout this server, none of which will be submitted for exactly the sentiment of that quote. We have not read nor payed any attention to the GAT posts or process as a result of the exact sentiment of this quote we've heard in the greater community, and we have read plenty of guides that aren't officially approved here that seem very reasonable.

That marks the end of my systemmates opinion and knowledge on the GAT and their processes.



Now on to the meat of the issue:

Surely we wouldn't want just anything to be approved and litter your guides section with redundancy or verbosity, but it's evident where the line is currently drawn is, at least by reputation, on the side of unnecessary harshness. Though I don't know how you would fix that given the minds currently working on the GAT; this is their prerogative to shape the form and acceptance of guides, you have entrusted them to give their effort, and they're likely following that in good faith.

I stricktly disagree with the tone of this post at the horror of my impassioned system simply on the grounds that I, and it is surely the sentiment of my system when rationally minded, do not want to see anyone prevented from doing or saying what they feel is right.

Giving someone power to set boundaries, then asking them to change those boundaries arbitrary or fundamentally applying it in perpetuity, I feel, is confusing and inappropriate to the mission of the GAT and their officers. To use an admittedly poor analogy, like asking a hole puncher to stop after ten sheets instead of punching the ream.

It is my opinion that, on a case by case basis, the GAT, if they are competent and cooperative, should be able to discuss the individual objections and corrections and come to a comprise on the solution without the need for non-GAT member involvement. As in this post.

Yes, the reputation of the GAT is currently soiled for exactly the reasons outlined in the quote, so it is the responsibility of the GAT to work together to change that view by making reasonable and well informed decisions. Additionally, it should be appropriate to get feedback from the community, but I say, let them decide for themselves how lenient they should be based on that feedback. If an officer of the GAT is consistently unable to debate fairly or with sufficient compromise, then their position should be questioned instead of setting up artificial constraints to everyone. If that's what your post implied.

If you cannot do that, then there is no added value to your process, so it is your responsibility to work together to do what you think is right given the current and future input.



As for the specific topic of parallel processing:

It is a clear and consistent message from Tulpa.info that this is impossible. Regardless if that's a true statement or not. As a result, you can not use those words here without pushback, they are locked in a historical definition with Tulpa.info and the greater community which gives any question of parallel processing the immediate response, "that's impossible." We have seen it again and again, and we have had to ask instead for the new tulpamancers in question to rephrase their question or talk around those words to share their experiences.

So given that whole threads on the subject exist and are more or less an example of a rock hitting an immovable object, I can't imagine the GAT at Tulpa.info can come to concensus on this subject. I don't see, given the current culture, approving those words alongside any words or sentiments other than, "that's impossible."

Surely it doesn't mean other techniques and experiences approximating parallel processing are impossible, but the problem here is clearly semantic in nature.

I don't imagine that we'll be able to redefine 'parallel processing' here, nor should we, the term is locked and many other community members outside of Tulpa.info have taken this same stance so I fortell it would lead to a discussion on appropriation and semantic stalemate as it has in the past.

My advice is to either talk around the terms, or clearly define auxiliary terms. However, the latter also seems to have the problem that many in the community passionately abhor adding new terms.

I look forward to your debate, if it even gets to that point, given how we've seen it handled in the past. We'll certainly give our two cents where appropriate. For what it's worth.

Thank you.
Reply
#3
In response to the quote in the OP:

Quote:Many of their criticisms are based on the idea that your guide includes many things that aren't absolutely necessary for creating a tulpa

I won’t speak for others, but my criticism wasn’t so much that the guide contained non-essential things, it was more that it claimed that these things were essential. Big big difference. I know I suggested removing the unnecessary parts, but I wouldn’t have disapproved it if he decided to keep them in (providing the quality was good).

Quote:Sure, that can shorten the guide and make it take less time and effort to read, but many people are willing to read (or in this case, listen to) longer and more in depth guides

This is true, and although I did keep mentioning in my review that the guide in question contained a lot of unnecessary fluff, I would not have disapproved it on these grounds (providing the quality was good).

Quote:If you keep a guide to only what is required, these helpful aspects would not be included.

I agree with this, but again, my problem was more that the guide claimed that they were essential when they weren’t.

Quote:Regarding people's criticisms on mentioning parallel processing - it has not been proven to definitively exist or not exist, so the idea that it shouldn't be included just because it hasn't been proven to exist doesn't make sense. Even tulpas have not been proven to exist in the way that most people in this community think about them. Might as well disapprove every guide on the site because they all assume something exists when it hasn't been proven, right?

I completely disagree with this. For a start, science can never prove anything, it can only be used to attempt to disprove. Secondly, while it is true that the existence of tulpas has not been studied in a robust scientific way, I’m not aware of anyone that has even attempted it apart from the Stanford study which is still ongoing, so we’ll have to wait and see what their results are first, assuming that their methodology was robust. The 1000s of anecdotes we have are the best we can do for now. Regarding parallel processing, this actually has been studied in a robust scientific way. According to the current scientific landscape, parallel processing is not possible due to something called the “psychological refractory period”. Here are some sources for the research done into it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7972...t=Abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8294...t=Abstract

https://www.pnas.org/content/95/18/10902...f_ipsecsha

https://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/1415?...f_ipsecsha

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1727...t=Abstract

And lastly, in response to the argument “the idea that it shouldn't be included just because it hasn't been proven to exist”. Going by that logic we should be allowing all sorts of nonsense in guides.

Quote:there is nothing to indicate that being plural doesn't change some things about how the brain works.

There is nothing to indicate that it does, either.

Now in response to Ranger:

Quote:First, the concerns about what GAT members deem as necessary and unnecessary guide content

Like I said before, I won’t disapprove a guide for including unnecessary things, however I would like 1) the guide to not claim the unnecessary things to be essential and 2) the quality to be good.

Quote:Making a guideline to say GAT members must keep content specific to a submission's thesis would make it difficult to reject off-topic content and therefore undermine the quality of the review.

Off topic content is either going to be good or bad quality and shouldn’t be immune to scrutiny. Any guideline that tries to make certain information immune from scrutiny is ridiculous and should be ignored.

Quote:If a guide writer gets feedback they disagree with, they are more than welcome to build a case for why they disagree.

I completely agree with this and would like to encourage submitters to do so. Unfortunately, this rarely happens.

Quote:In regards to reviewing parallel processing content in a submission, I have some questions:
Should the GAT reject or approve content related to parallel processing?

I think everything like this should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Deciding to outright reject a guide in advance is a bad idea and should not happen. There are valid techniques that approximate parallel processing that would be censored if the subject was to be rejected in advance.

Quote:Should it be required for the guide writer to define parallel processing in their draft?

If a guide writer wants to talk about techniques that approximate parallel processing, I’m all for that and would encourage them to do so. If they decide to do this, I think that they should state that the technique is an approximation. This would be completely fine by me.

Quote:Which definition(s) of parallel processing are acceptable and which ones should be deemed as meta or bad advice?

As discussed earlier, according to the current scientific definition, parallel processing doesn’t exist. Techniques that approximate it do though, so I would just encourage people to be clear on this and state in their guide that the technique is an approximation.
Reply
#4
I feel that parallel processing has been unfairly derided and stigmatized by some prominent members of the community when it is actually one of the pillar disciplines of tulpamancy. To wit:

The existence of parallel processing is generally accepted by the tulpamancy community.

According to the 2018 community census, 81.6% of systems are interested in developing it, 57.9% have attempted to, and 61.3% have non-zero ability at it, by whatever definitions of PP each system favors. A slightly larger portion of systems are interested in developing PP than in developing possession, switching, or imposition. The aggregate self-rated abilities of community members at PP are almost identical to their self-rated abilities at imposition and better than their self-rated abilities at switching.

Parallel processing can reasonably be defined in a way that makes it normal and common.

If a headmate manages a word or two here and there in response to narration, that's accepted as entry level vocality. If a tulpamancer imagines their nascent tulpa dwelling in a glowing orb against a black background, that's accepted as entry level visualization. If a headmate manages to twitch the body's finger, that's accepted as entry level possession. And if one headmate walks while the other talks, I feel that should be regarded as entry level parallel processing.

PP can be defined as simply as "two or more headmates acting at the same time". As with the other major tulpamantic disciplines of Communication, Perception (visualization/imposition/wonderland immersion), and Bodily Control (possession/switching), ability level then ranges from very rudimentary to fantastically advanced.

Parallel processing is better defined as an experience and as a skill than as an explanation for anything happening in the brain.

All of plurality is subjective experience. Everything we do here is about cultivating better subjective experiences. Vocality is experienced. Visualization is experienced. Possession is experienced. Someone outside doesn't see that Headmate X moved the body. They only see that the body moved. Even if some day we have detailed neurological models of tulpamancy that revolutionize our techniques, no one will engage in tulpamancy for the purpose of making brain scans look a certain way. We'll still be chasing the better experience of our headmates and ourselves.

Since we already have a widely accepted term that many tulpamantic systems consider relevant to themselves, I don't think we should try to force it to describe hidden and unconfirmable aspects of neurological functioning.

While the term "parallel processing" was introduced to plural communities by tulpamancers, the experiences given that name here have been accepted as common and normal in older plural communities from their beginnings.

For the past twenty-five years online, many empowered plural and soulbonding systems with dozens, hundreds, even thousands of reported members have talked about immersive inner worlds where everyone has their own continuing somewhat Earth-like existence. That's the experience. The larger the system, the more likely they'll speak in such terms and the less likely they'll consider other system members to be consuming limited mental resources. How? No clue. Doesn't matter, unless the explanation helps people develop the experience who want to develop it. Tulpamancers rejecting PP would put them behind older communities in the quality of their plural experience.



Guides should clearly define all of their specialized jargon. A creation guide should define "tulpa", a switching guide should define "switching", and absolutely a guide that mentions parallel processing should clearly state how the term is going to be used.



I am among those who are reluctant to submit any guides to the tender mercies of GAT, having watched them in action. I'm not saying never, but we can publish elsewhere very effectively.

The problems with GAT are not new. In studying guides, we have not found approved guides to be any more helpful than disapproved guides, so we do not pay attention to which section a guide is in when searching them out.

-Ember
Ember - Soulbonder, Female, 39 years old, from Georgia, USA . . . . [Our Progress Report] . . . . [How We Switch]
Vesper Dowrin - Insourced Soulbond from London, UK, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 9 Sep 1964, bonded ~12 May 2017
Iris Ravenlock - Insourced Soulbond from the Unseelie Court, Not a Tulpa, Female, born 6 Jun 1982, bonded ~5 Dec 2015

'Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you.' - The Velveteen Rabbit
Reply
#5
(Yesterday, 11:01 PM)Ember.Vesper Wrote: For the past twenty-five years online, many empowered plural and soulbonding systems with dozens, hundreds, even thousands of reported members have talked about immersive inner worlds where everyone has their own continuing somewhat Earth-like existence. That's the experience. The larger the system, the more likely they'll speak in such terms and the less likely they'll consider other system members to be consuming limited mental resources. How? No clue. Doesn't matter, unless the explanation helps people develop the experience who want to develop it. Tulpamancers rejecting PP would put them behind older communities in the quality of their plural experience.

Oh yeah? How do I do it then?

The only reason the forum hasn't liked discussion of this stuff is no one's ever been able to explain how it works or how to do it (in a way resulting in success). The only ""advice"" I've seen is believing it's possible, which certainly logically opens up the ability to (think you) experience it (just a possibility, for some people), but doesn't explain how or why it could work. And since this is Tulpa.info, while we do our fair share of encouraging and such, the primary goal is to teach people how to have these experiences.

I'm not gonna comment on the thread at large, mainly because presumably the guides in question are trying to explain how to do it, and if they're trying to skip the typical General Discussion part then they'll just hit the wall of criticism with GAT reviewing instead. I do think having only the GAT try and test out the methods to see if they're any good is kind of unfair, though, but then, perhaps it's just as unfair for guide writers to not be able to write about it too.

I'm just saying there's a reason the forum doesn't like the concept of parallel processing. People can say they experience it all they want (even if it's supposedly shunned a bit, though it hasn't really been since like 2015-2016), but I sure haven't seen people who previously couldn't do it gain the ability to with any sort of help. Not against people trying (to teach, and to do), though
Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
Reply
#6
I joined the GAT to give back to the community somehow. I try to provide constructive criticism and approve submissions based on how helpful and accurate I think they are. If I find a submission has advice I believe is harmful, and/or it doesn't achieve what it sets out to, then I don't approve it. Most of my critique is with the hope that the guide can be improved with some editing. One question I guess we should ask is whether GAT reviews should be offering critique like that? In the case of a guide that won't be edited like a video submission or if the submitter is gone, I'm not sure what to offer except my reasoning for approval/disapproval.

I have been feeling that GAT reviews have been rather harsh and nit-picky. Many criticisms come across wanting the content to reflect the reviewer's ideals rather than the author's (for example removing parts that the reviewer thinks aren't necessary). I think the author's intentions, style, etc should be respected... I hope I haven't been too harsh and such. Going over a submission in detail I end up having a lot to comment on.

---

On the subject of parallel processing... I think Ember makes some great points. I've been around different parts of the community and found people reporting experiences that seem to require some level of parallel processing--whatever the underlying mechanisms are, we don't know. Something that gives the experience of two or more headmates acting at the same time. I'm not talking about math. That includes reports from Bear system, Clo, asmask, JGC, and probably others here. I think we should ask, what can we achieve and how? Rather than, that's not possible, don't even bother.
My tulpa Aya writes in this color.
Reply
#7
I'd like to point out that not ever critique or nit-pick a GAT member gives is necessarily something that is going to make or break the guide's chances of approval. Personally, I think it's important to be thorough when it comes to content, as guide readers can gain further information and insight by reading the responses of other uses as well as the guide itself. What makes or breaks a guide's approval is pretty much just if the reviewer believes it's something that's overall useful and accurate. So yes, one can nitpick and critique a guide to hell and back and still come away approving it, unless there's information in it that they believe renders the guide unapprovable for whatever reason they have.

A guide can have things that the reviewer thinks is unnecessary or lacking of quality and still be approved. In the case of Longbow's guide, plenty of the unnecessary content was probably fine on its own, but when the unnecessary content is inflating a guide to 50 pages, that might need to be worked on just a bit.

By unnecessary content, I don't mean things like visualization or meditation. I mean the long, drawn-out explanations of what visualization and meditation are. That's what my system saw as unnecessary fluff. We wouldn't ask a guide author to remove sections about visualization or meditation, that's absurd. But, in the case of his guide, a lot of it could be condensed. It's just harder to ask for that sort of thing when it comes to video submissions. I'm not a fan of video submissions for this reason. People generally don't fix their submissions after they get reviewed anyway, but a video submission pretty much kills the chance of them doing that.

So anyway, yes, people can be nit-picky, but I trust that everyone on the GAT is smart enough to where their small critiques and nitpicks don't cloud the bigger picture: is this a guide I think is worthy of being approved, why or why not. GAT members are instructed to always give their reasoning for approval or disapproval, which most of the time does not include all of the smaller points they made along the way. 

And, to reiterate something Indigo said, a guide only needs 4/7 people to give their thumbs-up to be approved, and most of the time when a guide doesn't reach that number, there are plenty of reviewers saying "I will review once X changes are made." There is no list of specific criterion a guide must follow to be approved other than following tulpa.info's rules and being grammatically satisfactory, nor is there a rubric that dictates if a reviewer should approve. It's based on the individual reviewer's discretion, how they walked away from the guide as a whole. Abveion claimed our standards are too "specific," really they're anything but. I think other GAT members can attest to that. We really don't have "standards," just general guidelines and reviewer opinion.

If the tone of any of my system's or other people's reviews come off as harsh, I apologize for that. We want to be better than the previous GAT teams that really didn't have any respect to the author in how they wrote their reviews, and have emphasized that reviews should avoid coming off as corrosive. It probably wouldn't hurt to remind people of that again if necessary, sometimes people can get carried away or have a hard time articulating their critiques in a certain way. That being said, I don't think people should assume mal-intent on any GAT member's part. It can be difficult to avoid sounding harsh when writing critiques, so please know that everyone is trying to be helpful to both the author and any readers who might want to use the guide.
I'm Apollo Fire, the "Sun God" of the Felight family. I'm a tulpa created December 2016. My systemmates are RadioPiano, & Indigo. Form images: 1 2
Reply
#8
I think we should take a step back here and consider the larger issue. What is the purpose of the GAT?

The primary and original purpose of the GAT is to ensure that guides are concise - written in proficient English and logically organized, ensuring with all diligence that tasteless and low-effort content doesn't slip through the cracks. To me, disapproving a guide for addressing parallel processing would be similar to disapproving a guide for addressing wonderlands. GAT members should be highly impartial - whether or not they agree with the methodology at hand should not be, in any event, the basis for approval or disapproval. If you served on a jury, would you find someone guilty of tax evasion solely because admitted under oath to verbally abusing their spouse? It might be an extreme example, but the same fundamental principle ought to apply here.

Even if the majority of Tulpa.info users thought that parallel processing what absurd, it wouldn't change the fact that more than a handful of users have reported the plausibility of parallel processing and moreover had very meaningful experiences with it. On this basis alone, I don't think the GAT has any say-so in whether or not parallel processing should be included in a guide. If someone reads an approved guide that addresses parallel processing, it doesn't mean that the group-think of Tulpa.info particularly endorses the concept of parallel processing. Rather, it simply means that the person who wrote the guide had success with parallel processing and documented their experiences in an instructional style. This is the nature of guides.

The premise of this thread seems to boil down to 'should we suppress this type of idea?' and frankly that's not a discussion I wish to take part in.
Reply
#9
The point of the GAT is to make sure guides are actually helpful (and qualitative). If a guide about parallel processing was deemed totally unhelpful in doing that, it wouldn't be approved. The trouble is that parallel processing is much harder to gauge the quality of methodology to practice it because, obviously, not many on this forum have ever had results with such things. So it's kind of hard to like.. gauge how useful guide content on parallel processing is.

Another problem is that overlayed on the guide not even being about parallel processing but just touching on it. If a whole guide was about it and we weren't sure if it worked or not, well, if it's written well then just approve it and see how it works out? But if we have no way of telling if it's helpful, and it's left in as just part of a bigger guide, there's a chance the whole section is just pointless and that's what the point of the GAT is, to filter that stuff out.

It's definitely a complicated subject and that's why I said I didn't want to comment on the subject of guides, which I'm still not going to do, but I don't mind helping the process along

(Personally, I believe most methods/subjects should be and are discussed in General Discussion first, and since they have been that's why the GAT is equipped to gauge how useful a guide may be - I think parallel processing techniques and discussion should optimally be run through General Discussion before Guides, but..)
Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.
Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.
My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.
Reply
#10
can we rewind a little bit? let's go back to what the statement about parallel processing was.
Quote:During times like these, a tulpa can choose to exist in the wonderland instead of going dormant, sleeping or existing in a black void of nothing.

some very Important things to note about this statement is that it is not:
explaining how to parallel process;
commenting on parallel processing;
it never even mentions the concept "parallel processing".

the problems with this statement have nothing to do with the concept "parallel processing", and everything to do with the actual message that it is conveying.

the message, as I see it, is: assuming that all tulpas keep going on regardless of whether or not the fronter is paying attention to them (definitely false), and assuming that it's even possible for a tulpa to do such a thing (as far as I have been able to find, probably false).

if someone made a guide that was able to explain how to parallel process, and systems other than the author were actually able to make it work, I would be over the moon. I would be so very happy if parallel processing was possible, unfortunately, I've seen a lot of evedence that it is not possible, and very little quality evedence that it is.



I joined that GAT, not to be elitist or to put others down, but because I thought (and still think) that it would let me help people improve their guides and spread good information. I always try my best to not be harsh and keep my criticism constructive, and I think that all the other members do the same. it really saddens me to know that there are people who don't want to submit their guide because they are worried about us being too harsh. I will try harder in the future.

as far as approved guides not necessarily being any better than unapproved ones, we are trying our best with new submissions to make sure that they are good before we approve them, and I think that we are doing a good job, but we are not the first GAT, and the previous ones definitely made some odd choices. we plan to rereview old guides if we ever have a long enough period of time where new guides aren't coming in, and hopefully that will help us get guides that should be approved added and those who shouldn't be approved, put back in submissions (ideally so that edits could be made and they could be approved, but since most of the authors of those guides are gone, probably not).

and on whether or not GAT should be judging guides based off of the ideas presented in them; as a GAT member, my highest priority is making sure that a guide is useful and that the information contained within is true. I have no interest in suppressing most ideas (there are some ideas that I would not be ok with. call me corrupt or whatever, but I would not be able to approve, in good conscience, an otherwise fine guide that also heavily implied that we need to murder all jews). I would be just fine with a guide mentioning parallel processing or being about parallel processing so long as it could be useful to someone reading the guide and it isn't  trying to present some unsubstantiated theory as fact.
I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.


"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"
-Me
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: Ember.Vesper, 1 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Lolflash - click it, you know you want to