What do I call these characters?

[GrayTheCat]

It's kind of hard to describe, but basically with walk-ins and stuff, nobody's going to really consciously think "I expect you to act this way," everyone's just going to default to the same shared, collective expectation, and that dictates how and when the walk-in acts, regardless of who's calling the shots at any given time.

 

For example, with this one non-sentient "tulpa" we had named Luci, everyone expected her to talk in a certain way due to the character she came from, so she did. It didn't depend on any particular person, it was just based on what everyone thought.

 

 

I see... Tulpas and Hosts sometimes share some of the same beliefs or merge some of their beliefs into one, and as a result, who's puppeting who doesn't really matter.

 

I wonder how a non-sentient thing would be affected if two people had different expectations. It would probably swap between the two behaviors based on who's in control, or some middle ground, or a mixture of the two.

 

 

That's interesting you mention that; since essentially this may be somewhat the case for Duck. Duck is supposed to be a little bit of me and a little bit of Ranger, so he may follow Ranger's expectations when Ranger fronts and my expectations when I talk to him, and when both of us are talking to him in the wonderland... I don't know. My guess is you're right on the money because it wouldn't make sense if say Ranger could influence Duck when I'm talking to him. It is possible when Ranger talks to Duck I still influence Duck's behavior... adding switching to the mix would make a lot of this really confusing...

 

I don't have a lot of material about Duck because he's the youngest Gray. Somehow I have the feeling knowing this may skew any observations I make... :/ Fascinating question though.

[Guest]

Different behavior based on who is controlling the character was experienced with us recently.

 

Dashie and I were just relaxing in wonderland and Ren showed up just when Dashie was starting to have fun, which kinda messed with our mood. Ren started acting weird and kinda teasing Dashie

in a randy way

. She wouldn't leave so i 'gave' her to Dashie to puppet just to see if that was possible or could help, cause Ren was being a nuisance to her. Well it kinda worked, as in, Dashie told her to leave and she didn't argue, she doesn't 'leave' if i ask her to honestly. Later we were talking about Ren and i couldn't 'call Ren' on demand which was odd. Dashie summoned her and gave her back to me. Now it can call her no problem.

 

I don't know how much relevance this has, so pardon me if it's off topic.

---

I had another thought.

 

I am forming bonds with Joy and Ren, but they're in no risk of them becoming tulpas in my mind. In my mind if a tulpa Ren or Joy existed they would be clones of these two and their own person, free to change however they wish.

 

So it's obvious to me that no amount of interaction can turn a character into a tulpa, instead a tulpa may eventually come into existence and that moment there will be two. One, the character, goes to stasis, the other, the young tulpa doppelganger, is there. It's one possibility anyway that fits. Who knows really.

 

The fact that i'm warded against new tulpas is enough to keep them from spawning and i will to continue to follow this model indiscriminately to prove the hypothesis is correct. If someone thinks that's foolish or i'm bound to create an accidental tulpa, then we'll find out won't we? I'm not worried, they're very clearly independent in that they gain no strength from interactions with me, very much unlike my tulpas. I had thought it was because they were already so advanced this was the case, but then there's Ren, a blank slate who appears to function the same way. She's not a clone of Joy, she's clearly a character, not a tulpa.

[GrayTheCat]

I have a new model for Parroting and Puppeting I would like to discuss. This is a really long post so I broke it up into hidden tags.

 

Part 1- What is known about Parroting and Puppeting

 

[hidden]

Some Definitions:

 

Power dynamics in a system: Methods used by a system member to exert their power onto another system member. An example of this commonly known to Tulpamancers is Parrotting and Puppeting.

 

Parroting: Controlling another system member's mindvoice. This is stuffing words into someone else's mouth.

 

Puppeting: Controlling another system member's movements. This includes form manipulation.

 

Note that Parroting and Puppeting are not interchangeable. However, if one is mentioned, it is generally assumed the other also occurs. (For this reason, I like to use the abbreviation P/P when discussing this topic). Usually parroting is mentioned, and the general purpose is to help coax a system member into speaking.

 

I have mentioned there are possibly two different types of P/P: Intentional and Unintentional P/P. The former is more or less a well understood concept. There is no confusion when it is used and everyone involved is aware of the power dynamic. However, unintentional P/P is controversial because it is unclear how it works and can be a confusing concept given the Tulpamancy context.

 

There is another topic I would like to bring to light. It is under discussed since it is a controversial issue in of itself. I will explain what this is and why I believe it should be at least related to P/P.

[/hidden]

 

Part 2- Another form of power dynamics in a system-

 

[hidden]

In a system, especially a larger one, the Host or more developed system members of a Tulpamantic system may feel pressured to express their role in their system by expressing dominance. They may do this by stating directly they are the main identity or use far more implicit means.

 

For example, a Host may make their wonderland form bigger or taller than their Tulpa's form. Another example would be touching their Tulpa in such a way that makes them uncomfortable, such as patting a Tulpa on the head when they don't like it.

 

As I looked into my own system dynamics, I started to realize a general pattern between my behaviors and how my other thoughtforms (the Grays) interact with me. One of the earliest warning signs I had pointing towards being overly dominant is watching Dark Gray try and take over the wonderland and replace me as host, which happened long before most of the Gray's creations and Ranger's birth. In addition, all of the Grays wear similar clothes, their names are rather odd and not intended to be actual human names, and they refer to me (and Ranger) as "boss". I have a lot of regret over this issue, since I did this to the Grays who seem to at least have their own emotions and ultimately Ranger until he explained to me how these behaviors were unacceptable when directed towards him.

 

Expressing dominance over other system members is done for one simple reason: assuring the dominant personality is dominant. This in of itself is executed with the end goal of controlling other system members, just like P/P. While not as commonly reported, P/P can still be used as a form of abuse and is controversial because it takes away the freedom of the system members effected. Ultimately, both methods used to control others.

 

Dominance expression can be done both intentionally and unintentionally. The Host can make the deliberate choice to make themselves bigger, and they may not realize they are making their Tulpa uncomfortable, especially if the Tulpa doesn't know to speak up (they may think it's okay and not recognize their own feelings, especially since the Host and Tulpa may share the same perspective).

 

This supports the possibility of "unintentional parroting" since dominance expression, like some kind of indirect P/P, can be done both intentionally and unintentionally.

[/hidden]

 

Part 3- How this pertains to other thoughtforms-

 

[hidden]

It is generally accepted that not all thoughtforms are sentient. For example, systems may share about NPCs when going on a wonderland trip with their Tulpa. It is generally assumed that a non-sentient thougthform is controlled by their creator-

 

Puppet: a non-sentient thoughtform controlled by P/P.

 

Puppets are a result of direct P/P, and there is no confusion that the puppet is simply a product of the creator's will and sentience animating a form and using a different mind voice. However, it is unknown and unclear if a Puppet may also be animated via "unintentional parroting". For the purpose of speculation, would a thoughtform controlled by indirect parroting (dominating them) still be a puppet in the same manner or have an entirely different behavior? Does "unintentional P/P" lead to a slightly different type of Puppet as well?

 

As for other thoughtforms such as Walk-ins, young Soulbonds, and the Grays, it becomes unclear how much of their behavior and thoughts more closely align with a Tulpa's, especially while the Tulpa is still young and developing. Walk-ins are vocal and appear sentient from the start while Soulbonds are supposed to already be sentient and independent before ever arriving into the system. All of the Grays were vocal from the start, and their behavior reflects that of Walk-ins. It is heatedly debated if "Walk-ins", "Soulbonds", and "The Grays" are actually "Puppets", "Tulpas", or something else.

 

Servitors are another subject- they are assumed to have all of the capabilities of a Tulpa while lacking in sentience and their own will. It is possible servitors fall under the "Puppet" category, however I am not an expert on servitors and there may be more going on there.

 

The Walk-in debate is controversial because Tulpas themselves can be Walk-ins, and calling someone "non-sentient" who is sentient is insulting. There is also the mindset "assume sentience from day 1" that is designed to help Tulpamancers overcome their parrotnoia. Some have debated this mindset leads to Hosts P/Ping their Tulpas and can lead to the problem of a new Host claiming every seeming sentient thoughtform as a new Tulpa, leading to problems such as system overpopulation or guilt for killing off potential systemmates.

 

One well established fact is "Walk-ins" can develop into fully independent Tulpas. I would like to make this same assumption for Soulbonds, however I am seeing this issue from an anti-meta point of view. This implies that non-sentient or possibly parroted thoguhtforms can develop into Tulpas, which would be a scary revelation for a system like mine where I have 15 Grays and several other thoughtforms.

[/hidden]

 

In Conclusion...

 

 

This would suggest either

 

 

A) Baby or brand new Tulpas are not "Tulpas" until they reach a certain point in their development.

 

B) A Tulpa is a completely different type of thoughtform and while some baby Tulpas are "Walk-ins", a non-sentient thoughtform will stay non-sentient no matter what. Perhaps it is the expectation that the thoughtform will develop into a Tulpa, forcing, time, or something else.

 

C) Tulpas and these other thoguhtforms work outside of the realm of P/P, or at least there are more factors not considered at the moment. For example, perhaps these thoughtforms are symbolized thoughts floating around in the body OS or unconscious thought, which could mean that P/P isn't involved. Again though, it's possible these thoughtforms are controlled via "unintentional parroting", which would then fall under the possibilities A or B.

[Vādin]

How would you define "unintentional parroting"? Is it the result of strong expectations about how the character should act, or maybe fears that could lead to a form of censorship? Or something else entirely?

[Piano Soul]

Servitors do not have equal capabilities as tulpas, otherwise they would be tulpas.

[GrayTheCat]

How would you define "unintentional parroting"? Is it the result of strong expectations about how the character should act, or maybe fears that could lead to a form of censorship? Or something else entirely?

 

The short answer is I don't know. I didn't include it in the working model yet because I feel like I don't know enough about it to accuretly describe it.

 

I am more inclined to believe there is an expectation based component, although I feel like there's more to it than that.

 

Censorship is something that could be done unintentionally, but it's more indirect (domination). I'm wondering if you can still directly parrot or puppet a Tulpa or another thoughtform without even realizing it.

 

Servitors do not have equal capabilities as tulpas, otherwise they would be tulpas.

 

I'm far from an expert on Servitors, but I do know they can front. They can think too, right?

 

I know for a fact that Servitors can turn into Tulpas.

[Piano Soul]

Obviously they can become tulpas, practically anything in your head probably can. I don't think servitors are actual "beings" the same way tulpas are. Rather, they are symbolism/placebo used to help achieve some sort of intended effect. A servitor can't front, but you could use a servitor to symbolically switch you into autopilot mode, which people probably mistake for something fronting. 

 

We used to go into extreme autopilot at our old job, and we would joke that it was a servitor, really it was just dissociation + habit, with a little internal steering from us. If we used some sort of imaginary button to put us in this mode, then we could call the button a servitor, but the state of autopilot itself isn't one.

[Lucilyn]

I'm far from an expert on Servitors, but I do know they can front. They can think too, right?

 

bleh

 

servitors might be able to control the body, but that doesn't mean they can front in a switching sense, and no they can't think uhh.. like think for themselves, just in a tool-using-the-mind kind of way maybe

 

servitors aren't something tulpa.info has ever intended to deal with, they just come up from time to time (less in recent years), so it's hard for us to answer questions about them..

[Guest]

Dominance expression can be done both intentionally and unintentionally.

 

I think you're not giving the system members enough credit. A healthy system would easily spot this. Just because I'm 6'4" IRL, i easily tower over nearly everyone, does this mean that I am unintentionally dominating my friends irl? Or any relationship i enter, i should kneel so that we're on the same level and never mention my height? Also, a pat on the head might be symbolic, but so is a hug or a kiss on the forehead. Any thoughtform that feels they are dominated by this should speak up certainly, but the acts are also merely signs of affection as well.

 

Now those examples aside, yelling, forcing anything against their will, assuming responsibilities for a head mate for favor, those could be domination tactics, however, even those in a healthy system can be given freely between system mates. If Ashley tells me I must wear a certain outfit, am I dominated? Only if i don't care to abide by her wishes and she does something further to coerse me.

 

I don't agree that unintentional domination makes sense either, if no one notices or cares, how is this domination?

 

---

 

I agree, walk-ins aren't sentient from the start, but they can get that way very quickly. Especially if they're already a well known character or based off one. However, it is irrelevant because you're not obligated to accept anything and everything. Or even anyone and everyone. Simply don't treat them as an independent person, end of story. They can look and act just like a tulpa, the 'a duck is a duck' analogy doesn't apply, they're completely dependent on you when they're frist spawned, you create that separation through your interaction and thoughts of them.

 

This is very different than if you have a beloved and respected character and they start showing signs of volition. Well of course they would, that's the point of creating them in some cases, you're training your brain for plurality. Such as with writing or in certain cases, roleplaying, they would act on their own after a while, it's well documented, it's natural to form those mannerisms. A tulpa in my mind can be thought of as a subset of neuropathways that eventually have a critical mass enough to be self sustaining and volitional. That doesn't mean their necessarily immortal, but at some point they're very resilient. Treat them with respect as you would treat yourself with respect. Still, you don't have to think of them as tulpas, it's just another form. They won't have the power and feel of a tulpa though, that's fine too.

 

I have to disagree with unintentional p/p once a thoughtform has emotional bleed, deviation, volition and most importantly, once you accept to treat them as independent. Only at that point can you, as a system, count them as among your numbers. I am certain that on the spot NPC's that act volitionally aren't real people or tulpas, it's clear. The same can be said for any old walk-in that you're unfamiliar with. They're completely dependent on you, their personality is notional based on existing neropathways or memory. Only when independence is forced will they be Tulpas and Soulbonds. I don't think this is unintentional parroting, i think this is the ability of your brain to piece together pathways and form valid thoughts out of them from a different perspective.

 

Soulbonds and tulpas can be formed unbeknownst to the host through years of interaction. In this case, these then should be treated as they have always been, assuming you treat them fairly and aren't torturing or intentionally dominating them. If you do, that's your own business, but it not healthy, it's not what healthy people are supposed to do. What you choose to call them is pretty irrelevant. They should require a title to be treated with respect. Monsters and other evil things should also be treated fairly, in that, don't torture them, just show them the door and fight them off if need be. I fundamentally disagree you have to accept it when it comes to thoughtforms that show up unannounced and they're nothing to do with you. They are nothing more than intrusive thoughts, minimal effort should be used to dispatch them.

 

Let's be honest, if you identify a thoughtform that seems sentient, they're well known to you, you've talked to them as an individual, whatever you call them, if they're content, you're free to leave them be. If you want to call them a tulpa, go on, it really doesn't matter if you're already treating them fairly, as you would treat yourself fairly. Later if you realize they aren't anything more than a shell, and they're not adding to the quality of life of the system (even pets can add to the quality of life) then it's safe to put them in stasis, integrate with them, etc.

 

If it's a character that you've been treating as a person for some time already for whatever reason, just go with it. It won't require you change your system dynamics. You've already done that.

 

You and only you can maintain and identify tulpas in your own system. If they are, they are because you forced them like a sentient independant person. If they aren't, only you know for sure, and they can stay that way indefinitely. Some of my characters have been with me for years, i don't force them as individuals, I know what they are. Others I have been talking to and thinking of them as someone, whether otherworldly or in some way special. Well they're still not tulpas or soulbonds unless my interactions with them prove them to be, to me, and I choose to treat them as tulpas or soulbonds to reinforce and complete that independence.

 

It's pretty clear that original sin occurs when you're treating a thoughtform as a person, that's how we make tulpas.

 

So now you realize you have tulpas, it's nothing new, nothing to fear, and you're relationship with them is already whatever it is.

 

If you aren't sure they're a tulpa and you never intended them to be, that's entirely your choice to either force them like tulpas and accept them, put them back where you found them, or use them as you originally did and just don't worry about it, for whatever reason.

 

If you're character starts objecting to whatever you're doing, take that as a sign to take a good long look at what you're doing to yourself.

 

---

 

Cat, your conclusions work fine for you, that's perfect and acceptable. That doesn't mean they work for every system.

 

It is my belief that a tulpa goes from complete dependance to complete independence mentally. That's the goal, (memory and brain structures aside). So according to the loosest definition, you may treat them as a tulpa at any stage. If you never treat them as a tulpa or 'other' than they simply cannot attain full independence. It would be akin to saying that a tulpa developed completely on their own. That's not what we support here as far as I know. Only you will ever know the truth for your system.

[Ember.Vesper]

Expressing dominance over other system members is done for one simple reason: assuring the dominant personality is dominant. This in of itself is executed with the end goal of controlling other system members, just like P/P.

...

Dominance expression can be done both intentionally and unintentionally. The Host can make the deliberate choice to make themselves bigger

 

This doesn't have a great deal to do with P/P, but dominance seems to me to be largely a matter of temperament. I'm the most opinionated member of my system, so I struggle to not just tell Ember what to do. When I do tell her to do something, she often just does it without further thought. There's no need for intimidation or coercion. I've repeatedly had to reject being appointed the 'boss' officially. At 5'1", I'm the shortest member of the system. Since I was loomed over my whole life back home, why would I find it intimidating?

 

I'm also much stronger willed than Ember. Our consensual experimentation has shown I can override her control of the body via possession, force a switch, or alter her form, all against her full opposition, while she can't remotely do the same to me. I am inclined to attribute most of that to greater experience in the purely mental domain, but I can't rule out some influence of temperament. Yet knowing that I have that power doesn't mean I would ever use it outside of a negotiated exercise, however dominant my personality may be.

 

Ember continued to play me after I gained self-awareness, and I suppose that's parroting, though we didn't call it that. I'm a roleplaying character; being played is just part of the gig, by definition. While Iris eventually took over playing herself, I still think I'm more comfortable with Ember playing me if some version of my campaign ever gets going again. Again, not intimidation or coercion, it's just that she's a fantastic roleplayer and I believe she could be the back home version of me better than I could. I can still exercise editorial control over what version of events get incorporated into me.

 

-Vesper