You don’t classify each type of .e.g voice hallucinated with schizophrenia. You could for example apply your argument to say “well, is the voice threatening to kill you only if you don’t study for your test? If so, isn’t the net effect beneficial, and as such it’s not really a mental illness? If you like being motivated by your voices, you don’t suffer from schizophrenia, that’s only for people who dislike their voices.”
I certainly cannot prove that there are no situations in which hallucinating imaginary people giving you advice would not be net beneficial, in fact, there certainly are situations in which any given potential mental illness may be beneficial. There have been studies about certain potential mental illnesses being predominant (or at least overrepresented) in certain professions, sometimes to the professional’s benefit (also: taking cocaine may be beneficial. Certain tulpas may be beneficial.).
Who knows, maybe an unknown grand-uncle will leave a fortune to you, predicated on you being a drug-addict. In which case being a drug-addict would have been beneficial.
People dabble in alcohol to get a social edge, they usually refrain from heroin. Which reference class is a tulpa most like?
You can put a “Your Mileage May Vary” disclaimer to any advice, but actually hallucinating persons who then interact with you seems like it should belong in the DSM (where it is) way more than it should belong in a self-help guide.
Maybe when plenty of people have used tulpas for decades, and a representative sample of them can be used to prove their safety, there will be enough evidence to switch the reference class, to introduce a special case in the form of “hallucinations are a common symptom of schizophrenia, except tulpas”. Until then, the default case would be using the reference class of “effects of hallucinating people”, which is presumed harmful unless shown to be otherwise.
Maybe when plenty of people have used tulpas for decades
Never happen if no-one tries. I agree that it looks dangerous, but this is the ridiculous munchkin ideas thread, not the boring advice or low-hanging fruit threads.
Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there He wasn’t there again today I wish, I wish he’d go away...
You could for example apply your argument to say “well, is the voice threatening to kill you only if you don’t study for your test? If so, isn’t the net effect beneficial, and as such it’s not really a mental illness? If you like being motivated by your voices, you don’t suffer from schizophrenia, that’s only for people who dislike their voices.”
If you’re going to define schizophrenia as voices that are bad for the person, then that would mean that it’s only for people who dislike their voices (and are not deluded about whether the voices are a net benefit).
Voices threatening to kill you if you don’t achieve your goals also doesn’t seem like a good example of a net benefit—that would cause a lot of stress, so it might not actually be beneficial. It’s also not typical behavior for tulpas, based on the conversations in the tulpa subreddit. Voices that annoy you when you don’t work or try to influence your behavior with (simulated?) social pressure would probably be more typical.
Anyway… I’m trying to figure out where exactly we disagree. After thinking about it, I think I “downvote” mental disorders for being in the “bad for you” category rather than the “abnormal mental things” category, and the “mental disorder” category is more like a big warning sign to check how bad it is for people. Tulpas look like something to be really, really careful about because they’re in the “abnormal mental things” category (and also the “not well understood yet” category), but the people on the tulpa subreddit don’t seem unhappy or frustrated, so I haven’t added many “bad for you” downvotes.
I’ve also got some evidence indicating that they’re at least not horrible:
People who have tulpas say they think it’s a good thing
People who have tulpas aren’t saying really worrying things (like suggesting they’re a good replacement for having friends)
The process is somewhat under the control of the “host”—progressing from knowing what the tulpa would say to auditory hallucinations to visual ones seems to take a lot of effort for most people
No one is reporting having trouble telling the tulpa apart from a real person or non-mental voices (one of the problematic features of schizophrenia is that the hallucinations can’t be differentiated from reality)
I’ve already experienced some phenomena similar to this, and they haven’t really affected my wellbeing either way. (You know how writes talk about characters “taking off a life of their own”, so writing dialog feels more like taking dictation and the characters might refuse to go along with a pre-planned plot? I’ve had some of this. I’ve also (very rarely) had characters spontaneously “comment” on what I’m doing or reading.)
This doesn’t add up to enough to make me anywhere near certain—I’m still very suspicious about this being safe, and it seems like it would have to be taking up some of your cognitive resources. But it might be worth investigating (mainly the non-hallucination parts—being able to see the tulpa doesn’t seem that useful), since human brains are better at thinking about people than most other things.
Actually, the DSM does have an exception for “culturally accepted” or “non-bizarre” delusions. It’s pretty subjective and I imagine in practice the exceptions granted are mostly religious in nature, but there’s definitely a level of acceptance past which the DSM wouldn’t consider having a tulpa to be a disorder at all.
Furthermore, hallucinations are neither necessary or sufficient for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Disorganized thought, “word salad”, and flat affect are just as important, and a major disruption to the patient’s life must also be demonstrated.
(A non-bizarre delusion would be believing that your guru was raised from the dead, the exception for “culturally accepted response pattern” isn’t for tulpa hallucinations, it is so that someone who feels the presence of god in the church, hopefully without actually seeing a god hallucination, isn’t diagnosed.)
Here’s the criteria for e.g. 295.40 Schizophreniform Disorder:
One of the following criteria, if delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient’s actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other: Delusions, Hallucinations, (...)
Rule out of Schizoaffective or Mood Disorders
Disturbance not due to drugs, medication, or a general medical condition (e.g. delirium tremens)
Duration of an episode of the disorder (hallucinations) one to six months
Criteria for 298.80: Brief Psychotic Disorder
Presence of one (or more) of the following symptoms: hallucinations (...)
Duration between one day and one month
Hallucination not better accounted for by Schizoaffective Disorder, Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, Schizophrenia
Criteria for 298.90: Psychotic Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified):
Psychotic symptomatology (e.g. hallucinations) that do not meet the criteria for any specific Psychotic Disorder, Examples include persistent auditory hallucinations in the absence of any other features.
Where are the additional criteria for that? Wait, there are none!
In summary: You tell a professional about that “friend” you’re seeing and hearing, you either get 295.40 Schizophreniform Disorder or 298.80: Brief Psychotic Disorder depending on the time frame, or 298.90: Psychotic Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified) in any case. Congratulations!
Fair enough, if I had an imaginary friend I wouldn’t want to report it to a shrink. I got hung up on technicalities and the point I should have been focusing on is whether entertaining one specific delusion is likely to result in other symptoms of schizophrenia that are more directly harmful.
Many people suffering from hearing voices etc. do realize those “aren’t real”, which doesn’t in itself enable them to turn them off. If I were confident that you can untrain hallucinations (and strictly speaking thus get rid of a psychotic disorder NOS just by choosing to do so), switch them off with little effort, I would find tulpas to be harmless.
Not knowing much of anything about the tulpa community, a priori I would expect that a significant fraction of “imaginary friends” are more of a vivid imagination type of phenomenon, and not an actual visual and auditory hallucination, which may be more of an embellishment for group-identification purposes.
I think implicit in that question was, ‘and how does it differ?’
A friend of mine has a joke in which he describes any arbitrary magic card (and later, things that weren’t magic cards) by explaining how it differed from an Ornithopter (Suq’Ata Lancer is just like an Ornithopter except it’s red instead of an artifact, and it has haste and flanking instead of flying, and it costs 2 and a red instead of 0, and it has 2 power instead of 0. Yup, just like an Ornithopter). The humor lay in the anti-compression—the descriptions were technically accurate, but rather harder to follow than they needed to be.
Eradicating the humor, you could alternately describe a Suq’Ata Lancer as a Gray Ogre with haste and flanking. The class of ‘cards better than Gray Ogre’ is a reference class that many magic players would be familiar with.
Trying to get a handle on the idea of the tulpa, it’s reasonable to ask where to start before you try comparing it to an ornithopter.
Why would “which reference class is x most like” be a “failure mode”? Don’t just word-match to the closest post including the phrase “reference class” which you remember.
When you’re in a dark alley, and someone pulls a gun and approaches you, would it be a “failure mode” to ask yourself what reference class most closely matches the situation, then conclude you’re probably getting mugged?
Saying “uFAI is like Terminator!”—“No, it’s like Matrix!” would be reference class tennis, “which reference class is uFAI most like?” wouldn’t be.
You don’t classify each type of .e.g voice hallucinated with schizophrenia. You could for example apply your argument to say “well, is the voice threatening to kill you only if you don’t study for your test? If so, isn’t the net effect beneficial, and as such it’s not really a mental illness? If you like being motivated by your voices, you don’t suffer from schizophrenia, that’s only for people who dislike their voices.”
I certainly cannot prove that there are no situations in which hallucinating imaginary people giving you advice would not be net beneficial, in fact, there certainly are situations in which any given potential mental illness may be beneficial. There have been studies about certain potential mental illnesses being predominant (or at least overrepresented) in certain professions, sometimes to the professional’s benefit (also: taking cocaine may be beneficial. Certain tulpas may be beneficial.).
Who knows, maybe an unknown grand-uncle will leave a fortune to you, predicated on you being a drug-addict. In which case being a drug-addict would have been beneficial.
People dabble in alcohol to get a social edge, they usually refrain from heroin. Which reference class is a tulpa most like?
You can put a “Your Mileage May Vary” disclaimer to any advice, but actually hallucinating persons who then interact with you seems like it should belong in the DSM (where it is) way more than it should belong in a self-help guide.
Maybe when plenty of people have used tulpas for decades, and a representative sample of them can be used to prove their safety, there will be enough evidence to switch the reference class, to introduce a special case in the form of “hallucinations are a common symptom of schizophrenia, except tulpas”. Until then, the default case would be using the reference class of “effects of hallucinating people”, which is presumed harmful unless shown to be otherwise.
Never happen if no-one tries. I agree that it looks dangerous, but this is the ridiculous munchkin ideas thread, not the boring advice or low-hanging fruit threads.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away...
If you’re going to define schizophrenia as voices that are bad for the person, then that would mean that it’s only for people who dislike their voices (and are not deluded about whether the voices are a net benefit).
Voices threatening to kill you if you don’t achieve your goals also doesn’t seem like a good example of a net benefit—that would cause a lot of stress, so it might not actually be beneficial. It’s also not typical behavior for tulpas, based on the conversations in the tulpa subreddit. Voices that annoy you when you don’t work or try to influence your behavior with (simulated?) social pressure would probably be more typical.
Anyway… I’m trying to figure out where exactly we disagree. After thinking about it, I think I “downvote” mental disorders for being in the “bad for you” category rather than the “abnormal mental things” category, and the “mental disorder” category is more like a big warning sign to check how bad it is for people. Tulpas look like something to be really, really careful about because they’re in the “abnormal mental things” category (and also the “not well understood yet” category), but the people on the tulpa subreddit don’t seem unhappy or frustrated, so I haven’t added many “bad for you” downvotes.
I’ve also got some evidence indicating that they’re at least not horrible:
People who have tulpas say they think it’s a good thing
People who have tulpas aren’t saying really worrying things (like suggesting they’re a good replacement for having friends)
The process is somewhat under the control of the “host”—progressing from knowing what the tulpa would say to auditory hallucinations to visual ones seems to take a lot of effort for most people
No one is reporting having trouble telling the tulpa apart from a real person or non-mental voices (one of the problematic features of schizophrenia is that the hallucinations can’t be differentiated from reality)
I’ve already experienced some phenomena similar to this, and they haven’t really affected my wellbeing either way. (You know how writes talk about characters “taking off a life of their own”, so writing dialog feels more like taking dictation and the characters might refuse to go along with a pre-planned plot? I’ve had some of this. I’ve also (very rarely) had characters spontaneously “comment” on what I’m doing or reading.)
This doesn’t add up to enough to make me anywhere near certain—I’m still very suspicious about this being safe, and it seems like it would have to be taking up some of your cognitive resources. But it might be worth investigating (mainly the non-hallucination parts—being able to see the tulpa doesn’t seem that useful), since human brains are better at thinking about people than most other things.
Actually, the DSM does have an exception for “culturally accepted” or “non-bizarre” delusions. It’s pretty subjective and I imagine in practice the exceptions granted are mostly religious in nature, but there’s definitely a level of acceptance past which the DSM wouldn’t consider having a tulpa to be a disorder at all.
Furthermore, hallucinations are neither necessary or sufficient for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Disorganized thought, “word salad”, and flat affect are just as important, and a major disruption to the patient’s life must also be demonstrated.
Well, if you insist, here goes:
(A non-bizarre delusion would be believing that your guru was raised from the dead, the exception for “culturally accepted response pattern” isn’t for tulpa hallucinations, it is so that someone who feels the presence of god in the church, hopefully without actually seeing a god hallucination, isn’t diagnosed.)
Here’s the criteria for e.g. 295.40 Schizophreniform Disorder:
One of the following criteria, if delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient’s actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other: Delusions, Hallucinations, (...)
Rule out of Schizoaffective or Mood Disorders
Disturbance not due to drugs, medication, or a general medical condition (e.g. delirium tremens)
Duration of an episode of the disorder (hallucinations) one to six months
Criteria for 298.80: Brief Psychotic Disorder
Presence of one (or more) of the following symptoms: hallucinations (...)
Duration between one day and one month
Hallucination not better accounted for by Schizoaffective Disorder, Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, Schizophrenia
Criteria for 298.90: Psychotic Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified):
Psychotic symptomatology (e.g. hallucinations) that do not meet the criteria for any specific Psychotic Disorder, Examples include persistent auditory hallucinations in the absence of any other features.
Where are the additional criteria for that? Wait, there are none!
In summary: You tell a professional about that “friend” you’re seeing and hearing, you either get 295.40 Schizophreniform Disorder or 298.80: Brief Psychotic Disorder depending on the time frame, or 298.90: Psychotic Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified) in any case. Congratulations!
Fair enough, if I had an imaginary friend I wouldn’t want to report it to a shrink. I got hung up on technicalities and the point I should have been focusing on is whether entertaining one specific delusion is likely to result in other symptoms of schizophrenia that are more directly harmful.
See my take on that here.
Many people suffering from hearing voices etc. do realize those “aren’t real”, which doesn’t in itself enable them to turn them off. If I were confident that you can untrain hallucinations (and strictly speaking thus get rid of a psychotic disorder NOS just by choosing to do so), switch them off with little effort, I would find tulpas to be harmless.
Not knowing much of anything about the tulpa community, a priori I would expect that a significant fraction of “imaginary friends” are more of a vivid imagination type of phenomenon, and not an actual visual and auditory hallucination, which may be more of an embellishment for group-identification purposes.
That’s specifically the religion exemption, yes.
Isn’t this a failure mode with a catchy name?
I think implicit in that question was, ‘and how does it differ?’
A friend of mine has a joke in which he describes any arbitrary magic card (and later, things that weren’t magic cards) by explaining how it differed from an Ornithopter (Suq’Ata Lancer is just like an Ornithopter except it’s red instead of an artifact, and it has haste and flanking instead of flying, and it costs 2 and a red instead of 0, and it has 2 power instead of 0. Yup, just like an Ornithopter). The humor lay in the anti-compression—the descriptions were technically accurate, but rather harder to follow than they needed to be.
Eradicating the humor, you could alternately describe a Suq’Ata Lancer as a Gray Ogre with haste and flanking. The class of ‘cards better than Gray Ogre’ is a reference class that many magic players would be familiar with.
Trying to get a handle on the idea of the tulpa, it’s reasonable to ask where to start before you try comparing it to an ornithopter.
Why would “which reference class is x most like” be a “failure mode”? Don’t just word-match to the closest post including the phrase “reference class” which you remember.
When you’re in a dark alley, and someone pulls a gun and approaches you, would it be a “failure mode” to ask yourself what reference class most closely matches the situation, then conclude you’re probably getting mugged?
Saying “uFAI is like Terminator!”—“No, it’s like Matrix!” would be reference class tennis, “which reference class is uFAI most like?” wouldn’t be.
I think the term is “reference class tennis”.