Guest Anonymous January 28, 2016 Share January 28, 2016 Mistgod: Feels like our suggestion to have a list of suggested reading was totally ignored. When we first came to this site, one of the first things we noticed was that we had to dig for any material about the history of tulpamancy on our own. There are no supporting documents listed anywhere easy to find. The articles page is outdated and almost useless. We had to learn the history of tulpas and about sources such as Alexandra David Neel by starting on Wikipedia (and that had wrong information in it). Sushi taught us a lot and told how the Wikipedia page was inaccurate. We had to dig into old threads and go outside the community to really learn and get deeper understanding. Are you guys trying to hide something from the curious? All you are doing is redesigning and reorganizing the same old pseudo-science stuff. "Tulpas are real trust us! Just believe us and ask no in depth questions in your mind and just read our guides!" Happy skippy religious pseudo-science. Back it up with something. Have a bibliography of related historical material and related scientific material. Links to research and suggested reading in biology, psychology and physiology of the brain. Have something about the history of tulpamancy, the real history including how this community on the internet formed. Talk about the primary sources such as Alexandra David Neel (and any others if they exist, which we doubt, they all seem to quote her). As it is, the first impression to a new person to this site may be that it is no more scientific in nature than a website about Bigfoot or UFOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.