Sign in to follow this  
Ranger

Guide Approval and Parallel Processing

Recommended Posts

This website is said to be to help science but what then doesn't make sense to me if a guide was dismissed based on that those who are responsible for guide approvals thinking that something they may not be able to do themselves is not possible.

 

The whole idea of having guides should be so that people can try different things and test them out for themselves as this is what science does. Reviewers of science mags may often not know if what was found in studies presented is true or not but the info is published in good faith (as long as well written) so that others can also try it and test it out. (I think it's important that those writing the guides are writing about things they have tested out themselves and not writing based on heresay).

 

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

 

That may be the case as far as things go for people trying it WITHOUT tulpas.. but one can't use those studies to back up tulpa experiences if their hasn't been tulpas involved in those studies. I expect my tulpa to be able to function INDEPENDENT to myself (and I've had experiences which make me think that this is possible) so I don't see at all why it would not be possible (hopefully when I'm connecting better with my tulpa in future I will be able to try to test somethings out).

 

I personally would like a good how to guide on how to get to doing parallel processing. It appears some of the approval team are not considering what others here may want to be reading and trying just based on their own beliefs.

 

.............

 

 

It should be defined in the guide what the person considers parallel processing to be.. I personally think of it being when both the host and the tulpa are both able to be working on separate things at same time (and I think that if science studied this this is how they also would define it). I would not consider it to be parallel processing if it's only about two different tulpa's doing something at same time. Characters in dreams often are doing different things so that means nothing to me but to have a tulpa figuring out a task for you at the same time as you are doing something completely different.. I see as a whole different thing.

 

...........

 

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 agree with what YukariTelepath said above. I find that mods trying to get things in the way they like best by ripping out things they may be deeming unnecessarily, guides are being left dry and boring with the writers own personalities taken out of it. This makes things far less enjoyable to read. Maybe some like it that way but I like to get a feel of the person who has written something as I read it. I personally would not submit a guide here as I think it's quite disrespectful to those who have written the guides to be doing that and being so harsh and I'm one who would not fear to submit something to a science journal (in the past actually something I wrote for a health field was actually referenced and used in science journal and then picked up by others.. so that is saying something when I say I'd fear to submit something here when I would not mind submitting a whole paper to a science journal).

 

I think many who could be writing guides others would enjoy are being put off by the nit picky criticism of peoples work with their guides.


Jesse (human male) DOB 16th April 2013 

Working on imposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the guide section is for stuff that is already known to work so that people can easily find things that will help with with whatever they need. if you are trying to find the validity of something then put it in general discussion or research. to approve a guide, the reviewers don't have to have done it, there just has to be people who have done it or done something similar to it.


I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.

 

 

"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...fluff...

 

...definitely false...

 

Statements like these further erode the credibility of the GAT in my opinion at least. In that, it seems from the outside, reviewers aren't allowing full explanations or simply shutting down entirely due to personal belief.

 

How do you move forward with these fundamental blockades?

 

This may be our only option.

 

...put it in general discussion or research...

 

However, it's likely many of these things will be:

 

...considered metaphysical...

 

Then moved to metaphysical boards at the moderator's descretion.

 

This isn't a free exchange of ideas or experiences, it sure doesn't seem that way to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This website is said to be to help science but what then doesn't make sense to me if a guide was dismissed based on that those who are responsible for guide approvals thinking that something they may not be able to do themselves is not possible. 

That's not what happened. Reviewers commented/criticized a small part of a guide that mentioned tulpas being active in wonderland while the host is busy, but that's not why the guide was disapproved. But this topic was brought up so we can discuss how the subject of PP should be handled, especially if someone submits a guide on PP.


My tulpa Aya writes in this color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hat's off to anyone with enough guts to do that in this perceived environment. It seems like an exercise in frustration from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...fluff...

 

...definitely false...

 

Statements like these further erode the credibility of the GAT in my opinion at least. In that, it seems from the outside, reviewers aren't allowing full explanations or simply shutting down entirely due to personal belief.

 

How do you move forward with these fundamental blockades?

 

 

could you be more specific with what statements you are referring to that erodes credibility and why? as it is now your criticism is not very constructive

 

This may be our only option.

...put it in general discussion...

 

However, it's likely many of these things will be:

 

considered metaphysical

 

Then moved to metaphysical boards at the moderator's descretion.

 

This isn't a free exchange of ideas or experiences, it sure doesn't seem that way to me.

 

you may be right, but as we are the guide approval team, we can't do anything about that. if a thread gets moved, and you think that it shouldn't, take it up with the mods. what I can tell you for certain though, is that research and descussion should not be in guides, only the products of such things


I have a tulpa named Miela (formerly known as Monika) who I love very much.

 

 

"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was going to say exactly what Bre said earlier - the GAT aren't the ones doing science, they're the ones quality-checking Guide submissions. Like I said, it's really best if what's written in Guides is substantiated with at least general public knowledge of our most active members, and while it's basically never been so direct before, having a General Discussion thread to point to really gives them a leg to stand on.

 

I don't get why you're all so afraid of making a parallel processing thread in GD, it's like you don't believe that I know exactly how this site works. We obviously need one, so I'll go make it


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychological refactory period appears not to be a significant impediment for 2.5% of the population, AZ:

 

Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability, 2010

On Supertaskers and the Neural Basis of Efficient Multitasking, 2015

 

Supertaskers are able to multitask without a drop in performance. In fMRI, their brains show less activation of task-relevant areas than controls. The source of their abilities is unknown. It is unknown if one is born a supertasker or can become one.

 

For most people, practice at multitasking does not result in improved performance. People who believe themselves to be good at multitasking usually aren't. But supertaskers tend not to believe that they are good at multitasking, perhaps because they have never felt the strain of it and don't even notice when they do it.

 

Some parts of PP may be "you can't get there from here" phenomena. Given that PP seems progressively more likely in large systems, it may be that systems like the 5000 member Anachronic Army couldn't develop in the first place without a naturally supertasking brain. But hundreds of systems have been making lengthy reports of extremely advanced PP for decades. So somehow, it works, even though the extent to which one can improve at it is an open question. There are some exercises scattered across the forum, but most systems reporting PP seem to have had it from the beginning or had it emerge gradually without doing anything specific for it.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really appreciate that post in the Parallel Processing Megathread I just created, I'd like to bridge the gap between what people believe is possible because the average person doesn't experience it, and what unique cases of people can experience, as quickly as possible - get that out of the way at the start of the thread and people shouldn't be so afraid of posting their experiences anymore.

 

Edit: Since you're offline I'm just going to directly quote that post as the first reply in the thread, if you don't mind. If you'd like to expand on it you could still do so or we could have a mod delete my quote


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.

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.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.