Neurodiversity, Part 1: Two Souls in One Body with Annika and Tristan

I am always puzzled by why in possession cases and in this instance, while using a hosts vocal chords, the possessing entity has a completely different voice.  In her case though, I can hear traces of him when she speaks meaning that she could easily fake it.

I am always puzzled by why in possession cases and in this instance, while using a hosts vocal chords, the possessing entity has a completely different voice.  In her case though, I can hear traces of him when she speaks meaning that she could easily fake it.

Still neutral on whether she's faking it, but I think the issue with this video - which I admittedly only watched bits of - is there don't seem to be sources.

At least the video creator could have shown us some of the proof on the screen instead of mixing in clips of a video game. Also included links to the proof.

I mean the accusation of grooming minors is very serious, and I dislike calling someone a pedophile without clear evidence.

[Laird]

I think the issue with this video - which I admittedly only watched bits of - is there don't seem to be sources.

Sci, it's worse than that: there aren't even any specific claims; at best there are only semi-specific ones.

Try to answer these questions:

1. What specific behaviour on the part of Annika (aka "Jessie") and/or Tristan (aka "James") does the video maker claim amounts to grooming?
   
   
2. What specific behaviour of theirs does the video maker claim to be criminal, and on what basis?
   
   
3. What specific behaviour of theirs does he simply think is immoral or otherwise objectionable enough to be deserving of criticism, and why?
   
   
4. What specific reasons does the video maker supply for his belief that they are faking DID?
   

After listing them out, I've watched the video a second time to deliberately find the best answers I could. Here's what I've found:

1. He doesn't actually use that word; this seems to be Sci's paraphrasing. I do seem to remember having seen the word used in other obnoxious material about them though.
   
   
2. He doesn't provide anything specific. He speaks only in generalities:
   
   • "[Speaking as though he were Jessie] I know, I did something that could quite literally send me to jail, but - I know, I did an oopsie"
     
   • "Normal people would get arrested for the things she's done."
     
   
   
3. He doesn't provide anything truly specific, making only semi-specific, but otherwise general claims:
   
   • "Some of the things they did were really terrible, like, for example, the Discord: teaching minors about certain topics without the parents' consent; promoting adult websites to literally kids"
     
   • "Yeah, you've done an absolutely amazing job - of dodging the parents from the kids who you've been trying to make money off from your adult websites"
     
   • "I think it's more plausible that you said, 'Meh, oh well, a dollar is a dollar - here is my adult content. Subscribe'"
     
   • "So what better way to do that than massively hint at your online content in your livestream."
     
   What exactly they are supposed to have done in the way of "teaching" minors about inappropriate topics and how exactly they are supposed to have "promoted" adult websites to kids (other than supposedly "hinting" about them) is left unspecified. Annika's apologetic defence of being naive about online platforms, not realising how careful you need to be regarding the presence of minors, and making innocent mistakes is dismissed in what seems to me to be bad faith.
   
   
4. None that stands up to the slightest scrutiny:
   
   • He mentions that a couple of their TikTok accounts have been deleted, but without offering a connection between the deletion of their accounts and their supposed faking of DID, this is meaningless and non-dispositive.
     
   • He also says that Annika says at the start of her video that only she will be speaking so as to avoid confusion, and he claims that "That's not how her mental illness would work if she had DID". Presumably he means that DID switches are involuntary, which presumably is correct, but Annika and Tristan have later cleared up that there are aspects of DID which don't apply to them, this being one of them, so at best this simply demonstrates that their condition closely resembles DID while not matching it perfectly.
     
   • He expresses incredulity that a DID diagnosis was provided to them on the phone, but mere incredulity does not invalidate that diagnosis.
     
   • He claims that through research she knows so much about DID that she could say what's necessary to get the diagnosis, and while that could be true, he doesn't give us a reason to believe that it is true.
     

This video is sad. It is sad in the colloquial sense of "pathetic" - pathetically ineffectual at making a case. It is also sad in its demonstration that there are people who feel free to publicly post such malicious content about others who seem not to deserve to have that done to them.

At the end of the video, he says something revealing: "You know me, boys and girls: I like to keep you updated, especially when these types of videos do well."

It seems plausible to interpret that as an only slightly veiled admission that he's posting salacious content to a prurient audience for the views, which, presumably, make him money. This is pretty rich given his criticism of Annika for supposedly trying to make money in immoral ways.

Again: sad.

For all his allusions to immoral and illegal behaviour, his own video is highly defamatory, and he could probably be successfully sued over it, albeit that it might be difficult to prove (and might not be true) that it caused financial loss.

On a personal note: @Brian, it doesn't seem at all Christian to me to be not just condoning but endorsing and promoting content which amounts to public bullying.

Given its malignancy, I am considering deleting the video from this thread, but for now I will leave it to this response to address it.

He doesn't actually use that word; this seems to be Sci's paraphrasing. I do seem to remember having seen the word used in other obnoxious material about them though.

Yeah I just used the term "grooming" because I think a deliberate effort to provide pornography to kids does fall under that.

But yeah I agree there should be more details and some kind of proof provided. I've seen this accusation in other material, as you say, but it is not easy to actually find out when this occurred.

I can't help but feel there is something political to the disagreement here, because frankly a lot of people fake a lot of identity stuff on social media so unclear [why] this person is particularly heinous. It's entirely possible they are a fraud and a groomer, but these accusations - especially the latter - are quite serious and require some clear evidence.

[Laird]

It's entirely possible they are a fraud and a groomer

Based on what I've seen, I'd have expressed it a lot less affirmatively than that: "remotely but theoretically conceivable" rather than "entirely possible".

[Laird]

Episode four dropped two days ago. I finished watching it a short time ago.

It was again interesting, and some of it (the need for and primacy of love; the equality of all sentient beings) I would also endorse as wisdom as Jeffrey does, but the "all is one", "we are each God", and "the universe is one consciousness" sort of sentiments (not necessarily direct quotes) seem too much to me like the noetic monism that just doesn't make sense and the nondualism aka cosmopsychism aka Analytic Idealism which also seems to me to be pretty sketchy, although naive realism about the material world also seems pretty difficult to maintain, especially in the light of some of the experiences they relate.

I was also hoping for more exploration of the relationship of mind and matter given their unique perspective on it: "where" they each "go" when they leave the body to the other; what the "space" is in which they find themselves (or don't find themselves, being bereft of consciousness or at least of recollection of being conscious); to what extent given their experience they attribute mental functions (language; thought; emotions) to the brain and to what extent to the soul; what they have discovered about their souls (as distinct from the brain) and the nature and capacities of their souls; to what extent their sleep and dreams depend on the brain (e.g., can one sleep and dream while the other is awake?) - and so much more; I could go on, and that's also all pretty roughly expressed.

I'm wondering whether we might even reach out to them for a Psience Quest interview - whether they'd be open to that and what our forum community thinks about that idea.

Neurodiversity, Part 4: Metaphysical Implications with Annika and Tristan

I'm wondering whether we might even reach out to them for a Psience Quest interview - whether they'd be open to that and what our forum community thinks about that idea.

I don't know if we could give them the kind of safe space they might want?

It would seem to be a disservice to the audience to refrain from asking difficult questions, OTOH it would likely be quite upsetting to them to be challenged on a variety of topics both personal and metaphysical.

[Laird]

I don't know if we could give them the kind of safe space they might want?

It would seem to be a disservice to the audience to refrain from asking difficult questions, OTOH it would likely be quite upsetting to them to be challenged on a variety of topics both personal and metaphysical.

Yes, the thought that there are members here who are very critical had occurred to me, and you're probably right that it's a fatal problem, Sci.

Yes, the thought that there are members here who are very critical had occurred to me, and you're probably right that it's a fatal problem, Sci.

It's a complicated issue. The grooming accusation is a serious one, and [either] avoiding it or pressing them on it both feel like missteps.

I also am curious to see what comes of Mishlove's interest in the case. Are we going to see further research, such as checking if the brain scans match past scans of DID patients[?]

All to say that IMO it feels like a case that is beyond our remit as a forum. I could see us interviewing people involved with Survival cases that have been heavily scrutinized or even mediums who have been caught in fraudulent activities, but this dual soul case just seems to have too many complexities.

[Laird]

The grooming accusation is a serious one, and [either] avoiding it or pressing them on it both feel like missteps.

I disagree that avoiding it is a misstep. For a start, "grooming" is a very specific behaviour involving cultivating over a period of time an intimate, mentor-like relationship with a young person, where that young person feels that you're taking a special interest in them, so as to build trust which you intend to then violate by involving them in acts of a sexual nature. I've not seen evidence of anything remotely like that in the case of Annika+Tristan. There's simply no "there there", and no reason to ask about an empty and obviously bad-faith accusation.

In any case, they've responded to these sort of accusations already, in the document to which I linked in an earlier post. Although they don't address this one in particular, they do write:

Is Jessie promoting her work through TwoSoulsOneBod?

No. Jessie never intended her work information to be shared with anyone. After Jessie was doxxed, users began spreading her work information in chats and in comments. Jessie immediately shut down her work discord and took her twitter private, the opposite of something someone trying to advertise a business would do. We immediately began using chat and comment filters to stop it. Now we’ve disabled all comments and stream chats permanently.

I think all that would need to be asked is whether they still stand by that document.

I was not worried about the questions we'd ask in the interview. I was worried about how we'd deal with members who disbelieve them. There are two possibilities, neither of which seem ideal:

1. We'd stipulate that posts expressing or sharing derogatory content about Annika+Tristan are not permitted on the forums (or at least in the interview thread), which would potentially (probably) lead to complaints about censorship and cover-up.
   
2. We'd not make any special rules, in which case Annika+Tristan probably wouldn't feel safe enough to be interviewed here (which they already might not, given some of the posts in this (public) thread).