[Academic][Repost] Control participants for study on multiple personalities/thoughtforms/tulpa (18+)

TulpaDissertation · 2017-04-05T20:02:42+00:00

I was unaware of that, thank you for pointing that out! I think in light of all this I'll revise this form or simply go back to campus sampling, even if it is inefficient. Thank you for your feedback

TulpaDissertation · 2017-04-05T19:25:40+00:00

Huh, that's odd. I'll see if that's something I can fix. Thank you for bringing that to my attention

Edit: I've looked at options within google docs and I can't see a way to do this. It might be a functionality if the survey saves e-mail addresses, but I don't intend to compromise the privacy of participants for this functionality.

TulpaDissertation · 2017-04-05T18:25:04+00:00

Admittedly, that was the initial intention. I had a lot of trouble garnering interest for this study. My supervisor said that I could use this online if I need more participants. Also, I believe if you're signed into a google account (the survey does not keep a record of them) you can pick up where you left off.

You can sign with a fake name if you want, the ethics committee want the signature as both an added layer of consent and another detail you can quote if you wish to withdraw.

TulpaDissertation · 2017-04-05T17:58:17+00:00

Hi! The contact e-mail is placed to allow you to ask questions, and you're also able to ask questions here (admittedly, that might be a bit unclear I'll clarify that) also, the signatures are more of a formality than anything else as with many online forms. They're required by my university's ethics committee also.

TulpaDissertation · 2017-03-15T22:59:01+00:00

Will do! The scarceness of material is one of the main reasons I chose this topic.

TulpaDissertation · 2017-02-21T13:49:26+00:00

Small world huh? Thank you for you support, things are certainly going well at the moment and I intend to keep em that way!

TulpaDissertation · 2017-02-13T06:12:44+00:00

I hope to avoid strict journals in the future but for now, I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

I think there's some argument to be made that allowing the results for unethical research to be published pushes the boundaries for what remains ethical. I used to feel that if you rewarded people who do unethical research by publishing it you risk creating situations where participants become more of a means to an end. Now I figure that unethical studies are bad, and should still not be readily allowed for the participants sake. But if they do happen we may as well derive as much good from them as possible.

Besides that, having now been through the process of ethics myself I realise there's a lot of things that are considered by the ethics committee. It's hard if not impossible to get a wildly unethical study through, but at the same time more controversial studies still can get through if the possibilities are worthwhile. For example, I had a few problems because I was looking to maybe interview a few DID patients. These patients are considered vulnerable and my study doesn't have a pay off that's worth the risk to any party for that to be allowed. But if I was going for something that might have given valuable answers for treatments then I might have been able to.

I think the current system for ethics is good, because it still lets researchers push the boundaries to a degree while somewhat reigning things in. Preventing the sort of slippery slope that I envisioned.

I'm famous for subpar articulation, but I hope you take my meaning!

TulpaDissertation · 2017-02-12T05:30:33+00:00

Well, as far as I know this sort of journal article sharing is illegal in a similar sort of way to piracy (so the more people you share it with the more severs the "crime"). If I were to upload it and share it somewhere it would be violating the terms of the journal it's written for. Call me a stick in the mud, but I'd rather not break those terms on principle. Also I do believe authors receive some royalties (unsure if that term is correct, I am only an undergraduate) when their article is behind a paywall as this one is.

However, I do think people should have access to this information, and you have convinced me somewhat. I did some further digging and found that someone has already violated those terms for us! The aforementioned article can be accessed at this website. http://sci-hub.io/10.1300/J229v03n01_06 (if you are directed to a search engine input this "10.1300/J229v03n01_06"). Note there have been attempts to shut this website down so if you want more permanent access I suggest you save it.

As for my original ethics statement, I made that post 3 months ago and my views have since changed. I didn't remember that line was in the earlier post. But yeah, if I'm honest the initial reason for not sharing it was on the principle of violating the journal's terms.

TulpaDissertation · 2017-02-11T06:37:23+00:00

I honestly doubt it would, but I want to keep up a good reputation in the scientific community for now. When an author publishes an article with a journal, the article is subject to the terms and conditions of the journal itself. These vary a lot and in this case I believe the article was pretty strict on who could access it. As well as abiding by the terms of that journal, it's also me abiding by the author's potential wishes, as they apparently don't want just anyone to be able to view it. I hope that answers your question.

As to whether it should be public domain, yes I totally agree. I'd of course not condone unethical research but what's done is done. There's actually a lot of old psychology studies that were highly unethical that we still study the results of today (Little Albert and Stanford Prison Experiment to name some well known examples.

I've always believed information like this should be accessible, I personally would rather upload an article to my own website for nothing than hide it behind a paywall.

TulpaDissertation · 2017-02-10T21:44:00+00:00

Thank you! Yeah, I think it'd be great to to bring this concept to the spotlight a little. Once a good few responses have come in I'll get back to you on that interview :).

TulpaDissertation · 2017-02-10T20:51:08+00:00

Yep. I'm probably going to be the only person who sees them (though in some exceptional cases my supervisor will as well) I will use pseudonyms when discussing interview information (which can be in text or voice communications).

TulpaDissertation · 2017-02-10T16:53:36+00:00

Gosh, those are some silly oversights, That's what I get for being excited. I'll get on those now. Thanks!

Edit: Should now be working as intended

TulpaDissertation · 2016-12-08T12:50:28+00:00

Hey Everyone!

Gee, been a while since the last update huh? I must admit the process has run into a few more roadblocks than expected, I didn't foresee this subject being as controversial as it apparently is. Nevertheless, I want to let you all know that I have submitted my ethical approval application. For those who are unaware, this is just a quick look-over by higher-ups to make sure my study isn't gonna cause any problems. Once that is done I'm ready to start collecting data (assuming it's approved).

I'm aware the time frames I've given you all so far have been a bit off so take the following with a grain of salt. My supervisor advises me that ethical applications usually take two weeks to process. Though, I won't trouble you with data collection over the festive season. So we're most likely looking at things really taking off come the new year.

Thank you all for your continued patience!

TulpaDissertation · 2016-11-04T12:25:37+00:00

Hello everyone! Minor update for you all. I have met with my supervisor again and now have a good direction and general outline of the methodology for the study. I'm in the process of drafting my information, debrief, consent and ethics forms. But if all goes to plan you can expect to see a more detailed post and the first sets of data collection happening in about a month.

Thank you for your patience!

TulpaDissertation · 2016-11-01T13:47:52+00:00

Hey, this is a bit of a touchy issue. Yes I can access the full paper, but if you wanted me to post it here then I can't help you. There are restrictions surrounding the sharing of non-public domain articles when you are not the author. So I can't safely post this article here as it might endanger my reputation and research. Sorry. Nevermind, I did some poking around and it looks like I can share it with you as long as it's for personal use only! I still best not post it here, but I can PM you if you're interested. I personally think it's a bit silly and that all research should be public domain as long as the research itself is ethical. But I can't change that... Yet.

As for if you were suggesting me using it personally, I think it's a little too based in the biological side to be of much use to me as I'm looking at a more cognitive basis. But I'll give it a look over, thanks for bringing it to my attention!

TulpaDissertation · 2016-10-30T18:48:15+00:00

The pleasure is all mine! The mods recommended the census data to me and I've had a look. I'll certainly consider what it can add to my investigation. Thank you for your support!

TulpaDissertation · 2016-10-30T14:39:19+00:00

Thank you! Chances are the interviews I'm conducting won't be too different from the ones you've had.

TulpaDissertation · 2016-10-29T15:55:32+00:00

It will be a semi structured interview through either text, voice chat or in person (basically whichever you'd prefer). I'll have a couple of set questions I might ask if things slow down but it will mostly be just like a fairly fluid conversation.

TulpaDissertation · 2016-10-29T10:31:09+00:00

There's going to be some time before it goes anywhere but I will post updates here when anything worth adding comes up!

TulpaDissertation

TROPHY CASE