Estimate On Current Tulpae Worldwide

[Brassow]

A question Mistgod asked earlier today was pretty much "How many tulpas are in the world?" I gave it a wild estimate and guessed 30-50 thousand. But I'm going to be giving a bit more thought into it this time.

Note: My estimates are based on Meten's Community Census In addition, everything is wildly overestimated, so expect the actual answer to be less than my result. Also noteworthy, this only covers DOCUMENTED tulpas

 

Alright, so a total of 9.9 thousand members have been registered here. However I doubt many of them still pursue tulpamancy, and assume only 10% still have a tulpa, giving us a total of 1.1k hosts.

 

The community census gives an average of 2.19 Tulpae per host (I'm ignoring any claims of 50 or above as I doubt the credibility of being actual tulpas). This gives us a guess of 2409.79 Tuppers existing today in the .info community.

 

So 19% of the questioned tulpamancers (and therefore any tulpae they might have) listed are affiliated with tulpa.info. This gives us the equasion (19/100)=(2409.79/x)

 

With that equasion, it gives us a rough estimate of about 12683.1 documented modern tulpas.

 

Calculation #2:

Alright, thanks to the help of Chupi, I can guess a more accurate number on Tulpas (Who are in English communities as Waffles pointed out)

 

Numbers Provided by Chupi

Total registered users as of 18 Nov 2015: 9913

Active in last 2 months: 878 ("active" defined as loading a page)

--> Active in last 2 months and EVER made a post: 477

--> Users who posted in the last 2 months: 278

 

I'll make three different possibilities: Consider everyone who has been on the site for the past 2 months still has a tulpa, and another where only the people to be active in the past 2 months and have made at least one post have a tulpa. The third, which is the one to continue calculations with, will be the averaging out of the two.

 

To continue with my 2.19 tulpas per person calculation, possibility one has 1,922.82 tulpas, possibility two gives us 1044.63. The averaging out gives us possibility three at 1,483.725 Tulpas.

 

Continuing on my past calculation with new variables, 19% of tulpamancers are affiliated with tulpa.info. So we solve the equasion (19/100)=(1,483.725/x)

X=7,809.08 Tulpas

 

This number is a lot lower than my estimated one, and as Waffles pointed out, there's a large Russian tulpamancy base. Until a better number is produced, we'll assume it's about the same size of the western group. The total number of Russian and English-community tulpas is now at about 15,618.16

 

Thanks for the input Chupi and waffles!

If there's any notes or better ways to do the calculations, feel free to add!

[FadingSpectrum]

Fade: How can you have

0.1 tulpa?

How?

[Brassow]

Fade: How can you have

0.1 tulpa?

How?

Easy, a servitor. If it hurts that much, just round down you big baby.

[Guest Anonymous]

@Fade

 

It was a mouse form tulpa or maybe a bug tulpa. You silly person.

[Muffin]

@Fade

 

It was a mouse form tulpa or maybe a bug tulpa. You silly person.

 

That's discrimination against small tulpas. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

 

Now go stand in time-out.

[Brassow]

I think some really helpful information would be if a staff member could inform us of the active users in say- the past three months. This would be more accurate than my 10% assumption.

[Guest Anonymous]

 

That's discrimination against small tulpas. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

 

Now go stand in time-out.

 

Awwww, I hate time outs!

[waffles]

Alright, so a total of 9.9 thousand members have been registered here. However I doubt many of them still pursue tulpamancy, and assume only 10% still have a tulpa, giving us a total of 1.1k hosts.

 

That's a very low estimate. I don't know what that's based on, I guess not on the census. So what do you mean? I mean, it would only be a difference of one order of magnitude however you look at it, so not super important.

 

Still, the consensus gives 85% of respondents as having a tulpa. Naturally, you'd expect fewer registered members to have tulpas than respondents. I guess a lot of those accounts might have been registered and then never used. Actually, 2/3 of accounts have 0 posts here. But then again. I dunno how many of those are actual people with tulpas who just lurked.

 

Either way, I don't think that people who used to have tulpas but now don't will significantly change this. I don't have numbers to hand, but I'm supposing that killing all tulpas and giving up on tulpas is something that less than 10% of people who ever have tulpas do, so ignore that, I think.

 

So, maybe 30% is a better estimate than 10%? There's not much to recommend it, honestly. I dunno if you have a better idea than me about how to go about this.

 

 

So 19% of the questioned tulpamancers (and therefore any tulpae they might have) listed are affiliated with tulpa.info. This gives us the equasion (19/100)=(2409.79/x)

 

This survey is apparently all English-speaking, so no Russians showed up. I know there's a significant-sized Russian tulpa community, possibly the same size as the English one, but definitely at least a third.

 

So running those numbers, I get more like 50,000 against your 12,000. Like I said, it's not a significant size difference.

[Brassow]

Alright, thanks to the help of Chupi, I can guess a more accurate number on Tulpas (Who are in English communities as Waffles pointed out)

 

Numbers Provided by Chupi

Total registered users as of 18 Nov 2015: 9913

Active in last 2 months: 878 ("active" defined as loading a page)

--> Active in last 2 months and EVER made a post: 477

--> Users who posted in the last 2 months: 278

 

I'll make three different possibilities: Consider everyone who has been on the site for the past 2 months still has a tulpa, and another where only the people to be active in the past 2 months and have made at least one post have a tulpa. The third, which is the one to continue calculations with, will be the averaging out of the two.

 

To continue with my 2.19 tulpas per person calculation, possibility one has 1,922.82 tulpas, possibility two gives us 1044.63. The averaging out gives us possibility three at 1,483.725 Tulpas.

 

Continuing on my past calculation with new variables, 19% of tulpamancers are affiliated with tulpa.info. So we solve the equasion (19/100)=(1,483.725/x)

X=7,809.08 Tulpas

 

This number is a lot lower than my estimated one, and as Waffles pointed out, there's a large Russian tulpamancy base. Until a better number is produced, we'll assume it's about the same size of the western group. The total number of Russian and English-community tulpas is now at about 15,618.16

 

Thanks for the input Chupi and waffles!

EDIT: OP modified to contain this calculation as well.

[waffles]

Consider everyone who has been on the site for the past 2 months still has a tulpa

 

These 'two month' things seem very conservative. Well, actually, conservative in one sense and liberal in another. Only half of the forum's top 30 posters have been active in the last 2 months (for visibility; not all of them have a tulpa, but most). And you'd expect higher retention among them than people with lower post counts, so in short I guess a lot of people with tulpas wouldn't have been active in the last two months.

 

But then, I dunno how many of those active people don't have a tulpa. I mean, people with no posts, just loaded a page or two. I don't know, really. But, anyway, I don't know if you're trying to count active community members, because I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that only people who are around 'still' have a tulpa. I don't think that's the case at all; a lot of people with tulpas will have left the community or become inactive without killing their tulpas.

 

I guess it's hard to guess this. But still, I think you're being way too conservative.

 

 

will be the averaging out of the two.

 

I'd call this bad practice. You've made two estimates; averaging the two only really gives you a number that you never estimated. They're conceptually different numbers, averaging them doesn't tell you anything. It's a nitpick, but bad methodology, I think.