The front page states: "Could you thus, in much the same way you craft an idea, craft a whole other person–one who thinks and acts independently of you–to share your mind with? A psychological companion? As bizarre as it may sound–yes. Jung, Socrates, and many fiction writers have had them." This is misleading and inaccurate. Carl Jung wrote about visions that he called "fantasies." In his writings he clearly stated that the personas that he encountered in these fantasies (such as his inner guru Philemon and his anima) seemed to be sometimes like a real person. He did not state they were actually indepedant thinking beings. Jung did not report having a tulpa. It would have been more accurate to write "craft a whole other person - one who seems to think and act independently of you" if you are going to use Jung as an example. Also, it should be made clear Jung did not write specifically about tulpas. Socrates did not have anything like a "psychological companion." Sacrates had a personal daemon, which was a metaphysical spirit in ancient Greek mythology and religion. It is a bit of a stretch to assume this was anything like a tulpa. There is not much to support that conclusion. Again this is misleading to use Socrates as an example. If you are going to do that, then every animal spirit guide in Native American religions were actually tulpas for example. Again, there is no conclusive evidence for that. We just can't know that such a thing is a fact. Using examples out of literary and historical context or in an inaccurate way, leaving out key information, and presenting assumptions as fact, are all examples of methods used in pseudo-science. I suggest this be rewritten to be more accurate and factual. The front page also states that "many fiction writers have had them." This is true. Many fiction writers have explicitly stated they have a tulpa, if we are including members of the tulpa community who are also authors. Beyond the tulpa community, authors have reported having characters that again, seem to have some autonomous behavior. This has been documented in the Illusion of Independent Agency research from the University of Oregon. I am not sure if that is what the statement on the front page is referring to or not. But, the authors investigated in that particular study do not seem to report that they think these seemingly autonomous characters are actually independently sentient beings or that they are tulpas. In fact, that research had nothing to do with tulpas. Do we know of any examples of authors, who are not tulpamancers or soulbonders (the recently founded internet communities), reporting having what they think are independent thinking people in their heads? Or do we have examples of authors who reported something that only seemed independent sometimes? I know of no authors outside of the tulpa/soulbond community reporting characters becoming independent sentient beings. We cannot put words into the mouths of these "many authors." What did these authors actually report? In a side note not directly related to the front page issue, I want to point out that the only persons who have ever stated tulpas are psychologically based real independent sentient beings are the modern day internet tulpamancers. Most sources before this, before about six years ago, such as Alexandra David Neel, reported that tulpas were creations of magic and mysticism and illusory, metaphysical manifestations or related to occult phenomenon. I challenge anyone to find a source outside of the tulpa/soulbond internet community where it is explicitly stated that tulpas are a psychological phenomenon that creates a real independent sentient entity within your body. My host and I will be happy to be proven wrong on that. Our evidence for the existence of independant sentient tulpas is pretty much limited to anecdotal evidence from within the tulpa community itself.