Is it true ANYONE can make a tulpa?

[Purlox]

People with an IQ less than 70 are mentally retarded, or, what we call it not, intellectually handicap. Many of the symptoms of mental retardation would, I think, make it rather difficult to impose a tulpa. The most obvious of which would probably be a learning deficit. That would mean that the lower the IQ, the longer it should take somebody to learn something. If you put somebody with an IQ of 40 in a room and told them to make a tulpa, I seriously doubt that they would be able to do it. The lower an IQ is after 70, the less likely it would be for that person to be able to impose a tulpa. Of course somebody with an IQ of 78 could also have these difficulties, but for simplicities sake I would like to put the borderline at the same IQ that the professionals do. This isn't about patience, it's about mental cognition.

Even if it is safe to generalise that people beyond certain IQ are mentally retarder, you still have one major problem. IQ is relative to the intelligence of the whole population and Flynn effect both mean that who is considered mentally retarded not (because he has IQ of 65 for example) would not be considered mentally retarded some years ago (because he would have more IQ at the time). So I don't see how can someone use a relative value, that changes every few years (IQ), to relate to something absolute (retardedness). Yes, it's "just" a generalization, but over time this generalization will be less and less true.

 

I'm a bit concerned about you jumping to conclusions without any evidence these days. You just theorize something or generalize without enough people to prove something like FAQman did and I think we all know how much stuff FAQman said turned out to not be correct at all. E.g. How you said that people below certain IQ can't make tulpa or it will be extremely hard for them. Because subconscious believes can affect the outcome of the whole process anyone who just read your line, is below 70 IQ and believes you, will either not bother to try making tulpae at all or will get slowed down a lot like the people who believed FAQman's hour counts are accurate. Either way you just made a self fulfilling prophecy, that we will believe is true until enough people, that fit the conditions (in this case <70 IQ), say/prove that this isn't true at all. I don't think we should repeat his mistakes, we should learn from them and not make such hasty assumptions, that can slow down the progress of some people, ever again.

 

Purlox, I've noticed that you have a hard time grouping people into categories, with the motto "you shouldn't assume how people will act." We have constantly butted heads because of this. As you are an IN(T)J, I find this odd. Usually "everybody is unique" is paired up with people who are (F), not (T). (T) usually think of people as equal. Though this is not always the case, of course, since everybody is different. That being said, I am only making generalizations. Of course there could be somebody with an IQ of 20 that imposes a tulpa in a day, but I believe that that person would be an atypical case, or that there is an X-factor, like Savant Syndrome, that allowed them to overcome the obstacle of their IQ. In that respect, you are correct. Not everybody is the same. However, I do not feel guilty about grouping people into categories like I do. Going through all the X-factors would take up too much time, and would ultimately be confusing to readers who I would hope would have just assumed that there are atypical cases.

I have both. I think that each person even huge conformists have some differences between them and I do think of people as equal until they prove otherwise. The reason I don't group people is, because even though they might have some similarity (e.g. common hobby, interest, taste, personality) , because of what group they are in, they will still act as individuals, so they will act differently, the amount of how much they have of the certain similarity will also differ and sometimes some other personality trait will "override" the common one, because people aren't just lists of traits, but their traits also interact with eachother, which will cause them to not behave as you would predict.

 

And I have problems generalizing about groups people, because of what I said above and also because most generalization are based on observation of just few individuals from the group (or worse just on some old stereotype).

[Phi]

Purlox. I find it incredibly disturbing how I made an entire half-post about how generalizations are only generalizations, and that there are atypical cases, and then you continued to misuse the term in the very next post. Maybe I'm wrong about my theory of people with sever mental handicaps not being able to make a tulpa. If somebody with mental retardation comes along and purposely imposes a tulpa, I'll gladly recall my theory.

I simply think that it is beyond childish to claim that anybody can make a tulpa, a mentally exhausting activity.

 

You missed where he said the only people who cant make tulpas are retarded or brain damaged? What I was getting at there was to point out the incongruities between his progress, and the idea that no normal person who is really trying could fail.

The key word here is can't. There's a difference between can't and failing to. I could ignore a troll, but I might fail to. People with the potential to impose a tulpa might fail to do so because of outside factors, like restraints on time. It doesn't mean that they absolutely can't make a tulpa, it means that they fail to. Also, you're statement about my own progress doesn't mean anything. If I had made that post and stopped trying, then you would have something to argue. However, I continued past that post and have made progress. My own downfall is my lack of belief of myself, which I constantly encourage others to avoid.

 

And him. And I dont disagree with you guys. Again I was questioning his beliefs that any normal person can do this. What exactly are his assertions based on? First person reports, from people who he thinks are lying.

I have never outright stated that I think most people are lying. I've hinted at not believing a few, and those people are seen as important in the community, but I wouldn't say I disbelieve an entire 80%.

 

Yeah. He said that essentially any non retarded person will succeed with enough time. I am saying there is no real evidence to back that up and based on many other human activities there is a high probability that failure is most likely entirely possible.

I stick by my claim, again stating that can't and fail to are two different ends. Given enough time, any healthy person could impose a tulpa.

 

And you and many others, make assumptions and leaps of logic and post them as fact. Again, based on a few months of reports, of people who you dont know, and dont trust.

 

Where did you get the idea that the IQ lower limit is 70? Gut feeling, or maybe just hyperbole posted as if you were an expert listing off well known facts.

70 is the borderline for mental retardation, last time I checked. It isn't an absolute limit, it only sets up the limit for legal retardation. I used that for simplicity's sake. Somebody with an IQ of 71 could still be retarded.

 

And thats all my response is. Based on their hearts belief that "Yeah We Can Do It!" every person responding says dont worry failure is only possible if you just dont try hard enough.(or happen to be retarded) I say, maybe you can fail. Maybe Ive been in the process of failing for a long time now, and maybe you too.

You're absolutely right. Healthy people can fail, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't do it. I was in the process of failing for far too long, and I'm glad to finally be out of it. I hope you can get out of the ditch, too.

[Kadoh]

ENTP here, of course everyone is different. Don't expect me to debate you guys on anything else though.

[Frosty]

I believe Phi is accurate in the assertion that pretty much anybody (provided they are free of mental retardation and are conscious) CAN (i.e. able to) make a tulpa. Whether or not they succeed in the attempt is a completely different matter.

 

On the subject of mental retardation, I think the "IQ of 70 or less" thing is pretty valid. Making a tulpa takes much concentration, focus, effort and time; not to mention you probably need high amount of mental faculty to even grasp the concept of a tulpa in the first place. People with some mental handicaps or complexes such as autism, ADHD or asbergers could probably be capable of making a tulpa. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are some of us that have such disorders. However, someone who is on the level of retard to where they struggle to figure out how to tie their own shoes, is probably incapable of making a tulpa. (Not saying that everyone with an IQ of 70ish or less is necessarily that stupid either)

[Kadoh]

I have A.D.D and I have two Tulpae :D

[Purlox]

Purlox. I find it incredibly disturbing how I made an entire half-post about how generalizations are only generalizations, and that there are atypical cases, and then you continued to misuse the term in the very next post.

Please point out where it seems I don't understand generalizations. I just think that in general generalizing people into groups isn't a good idea because of what I have mentioned above. And I believe you should generalize in this case (talking about the part about people with <70IQ being mentally retarded) is that the amount of "atypical cases" will become higher and higher to the point of there being more "atypical cases" then typical ones. So I don't see why we should generalize like that when there is possibility of most people not being like you expect them to be.

 

Also another thing I should note (as you hopefully know) is that you aren't generalizing, because to create a generalization you need to have at least few cases, but we have NONE. You are just theorizing and jumping to conclusions. I talked about that in my 2. paragraph of my previous post, so can you please respond to it?

 

Maybe I'm wrong about my theory of people with sever mental handicaps not being able to make a tulpa. If somebody with mental retardation comes along and purposely imposes a tulpa, I'll gladly recall my theory.

It will be hard to get some proof to prove your theory is wrong as I mentioned in my 2. paragraph of my previous post.

 

I simply think that it is beyond childish to claim that anybody can make a tulpa, a mentally exhausting activity.

Label it like you want, but I will not think this is true for reasons I stated already.

[Phi]

And I believe you should generalize in this case (talking about the part about people with <70IQ being mentally retarded) is that the amount of "atypical cases" will become higher and higher to the point of there being more "atypical cases" then typical ones. So I don't see why we should generalize like that when there is possibility of most people not being like you expect them to be.

That happens a lot, I don't see the problem. When the atypical cases become typical, you change the theory in response or you throw it out. It doesn't mean I'm wrong right now, it means that the methods will have evolved to allow for it. It happens a lot. With the methods we have now, I still stand by my belief. It's still too childish and dreamy to say that anybody can make a tulpa.

You also seem to misunderstand my intentions. I don't want to say that this is a cold hard fact that will never change, because I want it to change. I'm trying to look at this objectively, and I just don't think it's typically possible right now given where we are.

 

Also another thing I should note (as you hopefully know) is that you aren't generalizing, because to create a generalization you need to have at least few cases, but we have NONE. You are just theorizing and jumping to conclusions. I talked about that in my 2. paragraph of my previous post, so can you please respond to it?

This is a theory, not a hypothesis. I have reasons to come to my conclusion, I'm not just throwing stuff out there. I have stated what I believe and why I believe it to be so, and you seem to just be saying no because you either don't like me (which is ok) or don't like the idea (which is also ok), with the argument that generalizing is bad (which is also cool). I recommend researching mental retardation a bit before continuing. Off the very first few Google results, you'll already get this. I've gone through the painstaking task of bolding what I believe will most effect the process of imposing a tulpa:

Symptoms

 

Continued infant-like behavior

Decreased learning ability

Failure to meet the markers of intellectual development

Inability to meet educational demands at school

Lack of curiosity

Someone with intellectual disability has limitations in two areas. These areas are:

 

Intellectual functioning. Also known as IQ, this refers to a person’s ability to learn, reason, make decisions, and solve problems.

Adaptive behaviors. These are skills necessary for day-to-day life, such as being able to communicate effectively, interact with others, and take care of oneself.

 

IQ (intelligence quotient) is measured by an IQ test. The average IQ is 100. A person is considered intellectually disabled if he or she has an IQ of less than 70 to 75.

 

...

 

There are many different signs of intellectual disability in children. Signs may appear during infancy, or they may not be noticeable until a child reaches school age. It often depends on the severity of the disability. Some of the most common signs of intellectual disability are:

 

Rolling over, sitting up, crawling, or walking late

Talking late or having trouble with talking

Slow to master things like potty training, dressing, and feeding himself or herself

Difficulty remembering things

Inability to connect actions with consequences

Behavior problems such as explosive tantrums

Difficulty with problem-solving or logical thinking

Concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning (i.e., the person's effectiveness in meeting the standards expected for his or her age by his or her cultural group) in at least two of the following areas: communication, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety.

 

It will be hard to get some proof to prove your theory is wrong as I mentioned in my 2. paragraph of my previous post.

Well unfortunately that's going to be the only way you can absolutely settle this.

 

Label it like you want, but I will not think this is true for reasons I stated already.

I completely understand and don't mind that you don't believe it. At least you're giving reasons.