This Article Made me Mad

Recommended Posts


I'm not upset because of their views on Tulpamancy or their arguments by themselves. I'm mad because this managed to by-pass the guide system and it is a terribly-poorly-horribly written essay, and that the very bottom of it has the intention of being guide material in the first place.


Enraged, I submitted the following comment:



I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve here. Are you trying to suggest Tulpamancy is a cult or are you trying to teach Tulpamancy? If you are doing the former, then don't do the latter. I don't care if your opinion is that Tulpamancy is "dark arts" or whatever, but please don't contradict yourself and say, "Hey guys, come join in on this absolutely scary and creepy thing IMO and you will probably suck at it anyway!"


For an article about "highly advanced Tulpamancy 101", to me this looks like, "highly advanced bullshit and some Tulpamancy". The first problem is it takes way too long for you to get to your topic of Tulpamancy. I used ctrl+f and searched "Tulpa" only to find myself at the end of the article. Another problem is you can't decide if you want to talk about how self-centered people are or you want to talk about conditioning. On top of all of that, you're trying to scare the reader into thinking that Tulpamancy is some magical voodoo crap without talking about why Tulpamancy is magical voodoo crap. Maybe you should have brought up switching and imposition (hallucinating your Tulpa), cause that will drive people away real fast.


I can summarize the entire first 3 sections of your article with the following sentence: "Tulpamancy provides a conflicting perspective on our sense of identity by saying that you can create another person in your mind using conditioning, which is scary because conditioning is so powerful in changing someone's behavior." After that, you like to talk about how people not only create their own Tulpa, but also can "fail" at Tulpamancy and what they can do to fix it. This should just be removed from this essay, or your other option is to do the opposite where you revise that piece and throw away this rambling.


The bottom line is I don't know what you want me to do after walking away from this essay. Am I supposed to feel ashamed for being a self-centered creature? Am I supposed to be terrified on the effects of conditioning? Am I supposed to want to make a Tulpa? Am I supposed to point my finger and think "wow, Tulpamancy is some crazy crap!" You don't need all of this extra fluff crap to get your non-host readers to think Tulpamancy is weird because the definition of Tulpamancy is enough to weird them out. On top of that, your other topics can be their own essays where you have plenty of options in how you deliver those messages.


As a final thought, the Tulpamancy community does not need people who are not committed to the practice trying to experiment with this just to get the "oh wow! I was God just there!" and then get bored and kill their Tulpa. Or even worse, scare people into creating a Tulpa who end up convinced their Tulpa will hurt them, which can lead to "I need Help, I'm Scared" posts or Tulpas turning into the threat their hosts feared because they made a self-fulfilling prophecy. I would rather you try to tear down Tulpamancy with a well-structured and well-thought essay than cause the problems I mentioned by treating this topic with an overbearing sense of carelessness.



In retrospect, I feel a little bit bad because my comment was harsh. However, I am upset that they put so little thought into this work and feel justified to tell other people how to do Tulpamancy. The thing that ticked me off the most was the confusing theme of "this is dark arts" and "here's advice on how to keep going with Tulpamancy when you fail", like as if they wanted people practicing Tulpamancy from the most f***** up perspective imaginable.

Pretty much my main wonderland form minus the cat parts, that's a separate form. I'm not a hippo, I promise.

I sometimes speak in pink and Ranger sometimes speaks in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). He loves to chat.


My other Tulpas have their own account now.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the article was made to convince people to practice tulpamancy, or to fear tulpamancy, rather it just tried to explore the inner workings of tulpamancy and the concept of "self" in general. I do agree that the part about "dark arts" is mostly unnecessary and just an odd thing to include, but aside from that I think that the real problem is the title, based on the title you reasonably thought that it was supposed to be a guide for tulpamancy, but then the article was really more abstract than that. It is definitely problematic if people try to make a tulpa based off of that article though

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.


"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cat, thumbs up. I considered what you wrote a well thought and well put defense of our community.


Don't worry about it.


I believe a clinical psychologist may consider tulpamancy a dark art. Calling it that in an essay may be the author's way of distancing themselves from the practice, considering that 'dark arts' are typically denoted as 'dangerous' and that is where the author was going with this mention. As in, a self-imposed danger.


Here's what my impulsive and obtuse self said after yours:


(Awaiting moderation)



I agree with the previous commenters in that you wrote a well formed cognitive exploration as a setup for a poorly thought out tag along about tulpamancy. The title of this essay should read, 'how to click bait someone into reading an otherwise well formed article about cognitive science, that is too redundant to prior art or too boring to stand alone'. Not as catchy, I understand, but truer to form. Furthermore, though it sounds like you may have spent a good amount of time studying tulpamancy due to your expert usage of terms, your ultimate advice/warning is very poorly thought out in my opinion. To do the 'art' of tulpamancy justice in your article, regardless of your stance, would require your thesis to be better formed, and your points to be consistent to that thesis


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with your response. I think it was fairly inappropriate to call something dark art within the context of a science article, or attempt to make a science article. So, hypothetically, if this about science and psychology, then there is no dark arts, unless they are confusing dark with subconscious shadow work, which still isn't dark arts... What is this article? It is completely mistitled. Which, makes me wonder, who is the audience? People drawn to tulpas usually know something about tulpas, and they will see through this article as a bait and switch... people not knowledgeable about tulpas probably wouldn't read this... if there is an agenda, I don't know what it is...


I tried posting a response, but not sure it accepted it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.