Ask Lumi's Tulpas

[Lucilyn]

Man, why does everyone want one on one conversations with us all of a sudden? We're busy and realtime chats require setting aside a specific (and typically large) amount of time, whereas in PMs or on the forum in general we can reply whenever we've got a few spare minutes. But I appreciate it! I just don't know why everyone wants to talk privately as of the last month. I'll recommend the beginners' tulpamancy group and the chat thread again, and there's an IRC somewhere I guess.

 

But I kinda get that maybe people want to talk to us specifically. Uhmm, can I ask you to use this thread or if it's really private PM us? (who to PM I have no idea, Lumi maybe) .... oops, missed a PM from over a week ago on his account, maybe I should check that more often. Okay yeah definitely if at all possible talk to us here, even if it takes like ten posts back and forth that's okay! Better than getting ignored for ten days straight (...sorry), because all of us check this thread if not each others' accounts.

[KarlYoshimura]

alright damn

 

if you're too busy/can't be fucked to bother you could just say no

[Lucilyn]

Dang man, with a response like that I might as well have said "No go away"

 

Okay yeah definitely if at all possible talk to us here, even if it takes like ten posts back and forth that's okay!

 

I'm sorry if realtime chat is absolutely necessary, sheesh

 

Also that wasn't just at you there's seriously like four other people asking to talk to us one-on-one right now

[KarlYoshimura]

there is nothing wrong with being honest or realistic about inconveniencing you/your alts. i just don't understand why so many users have to puff out their chests and get salty/self-important over a simple question

[Linkzelda]

[hidden]Maybe because being pressed for time doesn't mean a person is egotistical. If this were the case, everyone would be trapped to compensate for questions in chat to avoid that label of being self-important. It seems like a simple question at first, but what seems a breeze for you may not be the same for another; it seems like a trap to force another to accommodate for that other person's self-interest, so it depends on which agenda seems more demanding than the other. And sometimes, those things don't have to be split between being open for discussion vs. being too salty and self-important to bother.

 

Though, I'm interested if Lucilyn really did say no, and wondered how you would react to it. Maybe indirectly, you would've assumed they were too self-important to bother, but, that what-if is gone to dust, I guess. Then again, with Lucilyn's previous response with what she thought she should've said, that what-if was already laid out. So Lucilyn was trapped from the beginning, and this reinforces the idea to others that she would be too self-important/salty about these things. But, I see her as being pressed for time, and/or not seeing the chat as something suitable at the moment.

 

The same thing could apply for PMs. Sometimes, people may just have a fear of having a one-on-one discussion that might lead to a trail of more questions that they end up having to shrug off in a nice way because they don't want the person to think their ideas are absolute. It's pressure, and adding that split with salty/self-importance vs. being open at any time, or finding a way to have time is even more pressure. Of course, this is only one impression, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

 

This post would be a set-up for another person to over-react, and potentially become salty over the very same thing where they wondered why people get huffy-puffy about in the first place. In other words, they have to apply the label that they would be cool and collected over justifications as to why people may be a bit distressed over communication methods, but, the moment they break away from that, the label of being salty rubber bands back to them. The culprit is the labeling over things that are just a means of communicating that don't seem suitable for everyone. Just putting that out there in case this starts something really weird.[/hidden]

 

Long story short, instead of putting labels on people over their preference in communicating with a person -- some people that are pressed for time, or have a dislike for chat may not just open themselves to you. But, they clearly gave alternatives for you to discuss these things, so discrediting those alternatives to reach the same end goal of questioning them is just as salty as whatever behavior you feel they're expressing to you. It's like, "PM, or this thread? NO, CHAT."

 

I see it more of them being more open rather than being bitchy about it, honestly. But just one sign of resistance as a feedback from them seems to bother you for some reason. And that's where the confusion comes in--from not considering that the demand for the chat, and saying, "you could've just said no," along with discrediting the alternatives they gave you to show that they were willing to talk to you.

[KarlYoshimura]

to be honest lz your quasi-psychological analyses and convoluted/strangely translated posts seem to complicate matters further rather than provide mediation/elucidation (what your intent is i am ignorant of - not an insult by any means, just an observation)

 

anyhow sry lucilyn and other chatters in thread. i would offer to talk things out in private yet i think further discussion is ill-advised

[Linkzelda]

That's the thing, I was just being honest, and wasn't using Freud's handbook as my guide; it's that labeling that prevents a person from reading things over, thinking about it, and even asking questions if clarification is needed. It's understandable that you'll see me as an enigma, and I can't do anything about it (I'm in a trap as well), but I think another reason is that you may think I have some deeper, ulterior motive against you. If I can't be up to snuff for genuine, psychological, whatever it is, then so be it.

 

If you saw me as a human being, maybe it might have been different, but hey, I'm not going to demand it. Sorry for derailing the thread, Lucilyn. Guess even defending you doesn't shed light for some. It seems no matter how interested a person wants to be with this phenomenon, they're instantly branded as quasi-psychological, whatever it is (because no one turns the tables and asks the person what they could offer as genuine, psychological whatever it is). It's a pretty hard bias for anyone to tolerate, much less to actively accept for the sake of avoiding other labels that are just as worse.

 

In other words, if a person, in your perspective, always gives quasi-psychological analysis, it could just be a defense over a person calling out on another. I would have to ask what would be the criterion, to you, of what justifies as genuine, psychological analysis, because I'm all ears if this allows for on-the-same-page communication. If that criterion isn't established, we have nothing to point to in order to be on the same page. Not in terms of agreeing, but at least understanding. Because with that lack of criterion, I'll forever be demystified over what could be genuine, psychological, whatever it is because I have to look to you as the end-all be-all confirmation for that.

 

I'm not that good enough to tackle that standard, honestly.

[Lucilyn]

Well that was pretty complicated to be fair. I don't think what you say is actually hard to understand, but like I kinda start to glaze over it so by the end I know what you said but it feels like I skipped a lot (I didn't though, I checked). Anyways ty for defending me

[Linkzelda]

It's alright, I realized I'm a victim of putting "in other words" literally in different formats to mean the same thing. I thought it was something to compensate in case a person didn't understand one line of logic, they could try the next statement. And if there's an awareness that lead to the same point, maybe that's when the glazing over happens, which is good in terms of understanding, but bad when they already get it, and still think there's more to it. (Hence the label of me being quasi-psychological whatever).

 

I guess instead of trying to predict what the person couldn't understand, and trying to put it in a different light, I'll just give a base response, and if clarification is needed, hopefully, the person will ask. That way, I'm not doing the clarification for myself to remove the need of it. But when I don't do that, I'm still trapped on whether or not the person ends up being silent, and doesn't aim for clarification if the base response doesn't make sense, and I have nothing to point to in order to edit it to get on the same page as them.

 

This is what happens when it gets one-sided, and people expect you to know what goes on in their head. I thought the etiquette was to ask for clarification, and if people don't ask, or point to something they don't understand, then how can I even adjust things to have them understand? (But not to agree, because that's a different story). In other words, reciprocation is key, but anyone that seems concerned doesn't bother to ask.

[Lucilyn]

I think you are smart enough that basic answers to basic questions are fine. You always put so much work into every little answer, take a page from my book and just say what needs to be said. And maybe judge based on the person how much you should write (you know, from a well thought out post, or one lacking in legible english)