Persistent TR server errors

I'm not but I can. And I can duplicate the issue from both my XP platform and my Mac platform.

I just started jotting down anything that took a long time to load. I use Firefox and transfers list across the bottom.

Unless you've absolutely no interest in applied psychology, you may wish to at least take a peek at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

I didn't say I was completely unfamiliar
with B.F. Skinner; I know enough to tell he
is/was a quack.

There is a great difference between saying that another is "uninteresting," which implies no effort has been made, or will be made, to gain an in depth understanding of that person, and to call that one a "quack," which implies that one has already undertaken to gain such an understanding.

Perhaps you will elaborate.

Many people still consider psychology a quack science. Let's face it, Freud (among others) was pretty damn goofy. Doesn't change the fact that he really challenged us to examine ourselves and our mental function in a scientific fashion, and led others to do the same.

Personally, I don't think any one psychological theory/ist has it all correct. But when you carefully and with some common sense and objectivity examine the theories of all of them then mix and match the pieces that fit, (potentially badly put, but oh well) a remarkably accurate picture of the workings of the human mind can be seen.

There is much that psychology ignores - as do the other sciences, but that does not change the fact that it has a lot to offer.

deepsand: [i]There is a great difference between saying that another is "uninteresting," which implies no effort has been made, or will be made, to gain an in depth understanding of that person...[/i]

The description "uninteresting" was chosen after some effort [u]was[/u] made, then judged wasteful; to call him "uninteresting" without having first read [u]some[/u] of his writing would have been unfair!

[i]But when you carefully and with some common sense and objectivity examine the theories of all of them then mix and match the pieces that fit, (potentially badly put, but oh well) a remarkably accurate picture of the workings of the human mind can be seen.[/i]

Only if lemurs practice common sense literary appreciation! :D

The point is that each of these theorists appear (ok - to me) to carry their own little chunk of psycohological theory to extremes. But if one dumps the extremes - which requires some semblance of general knowledge and common sense - one can then combine what is left from each of them to form a relatively comprehensive and cohesive picture of the workings of the human mind.

Notice I did not use the word complete in referencing the picture of the workings of the human mind.

[i]Only if lemurs practice common sense literary appreciation![/i]

If they're given a standard typewriter, the letters and punctuation marks will be Latin. That's how nonsensical Skinner looks to me. If you find some of his work helpful in analyzing your own mind, cool.

[i]The point is that each of these theorists appear (ok - to me)[/i]

Of course.

[i]... to carry their own little chunk of psychological theory to extremes. But if one dumps the extremes - which requires some semblance of general knowledge and common sense - one can then combine what is left from each of them to form a relatively comprehensive and cohesive picture of the workings of the human mind.[/i]

I skip straight to step 2, common sense. I think it saves me time.

[i]Notice I did not use the word complete in referencing the picture of the workings of the human mind.[/i]

OK.

I noticed, also.

The words "comprehensive and cohesive" are also incorrect in this context.

comprehensive: ?adjective
1. of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study of world affairs.
2. comprehending mentally; having an extensive mental range or grasp.

cohesive: ?adjective
2. cohering or tending to cohere; well-integrated; unified: a cohesive organization.

I beg to differ.

Neither comprehensive nor cohesive indicates completeness.

From Merriam-Webster:

1) charlatan
2) a pretender to medical skill

From Random House:

1) a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill
2) a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan

That Skinner's various conclusions re. behavior may be open to dispute does suffice for the use of the pejorative "quack."

With, of course, the additional 404.

BF Skinner does not achieve either.

"In what follows, these issues are discussed 'from a scientific point of view,' but this does not mean that the reader will need to know the details of a scientific analysis of behavior. A mere interpretation will suffice. The instances of behavior cited in what follows are not offered as 'proof' of the interpretation. The proof is to be found in the basic analysis."

[i]circulus in demonstrando[/i]

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#circular%20reasoning%20--%20Sometimes%20known%20as%20circulus%20in%20demonstrando,%20or%20begging%20the%20question.%20H.W.%20Fowler,%20in%20Modern%20English%20Usage,%20puts%20it%20this%20way:%20%22The%20basing%20of%20two%20conclusions%20each%20upon%20the%20other.%20That%20the%20world%20is%20good%20follows%20from%20the%20known%20goodness%20of%20God;%20that%20God%20is%20good%20is%20known%20from%20the%20excellence%20of%20the%20world%20he%20has%20made.%22

My point was a response toy your statement, "All actions are behavior." Almost a direct quote from BF Skinner. He even went as far as to say thoughts are simply internal behaviors and can be interpreted, molded, and controlled if enough control of the environment is allowed (REALLY rough cereal-box edit of his theory). The dog part did in fact refer to Pavlov, another behaviorist. I could not think of a way to squeeze in Watson, but he is not so recognizable anyway.
he is well worth looking into and developing a familiarity with, since his principles are used daily by the military, advertising, education, and .... well, damn near everyone.

Or were you saying that one behaviorist idiot is the same as the next?

confusing pavlov with skinner would be like calling the moon the sun...
And while I do think both of them have some issues, its undeniable that there is a core of truth to conditioning paradigms... hell, it works like a charm for the Marine Core (sing Mary Had A Little Lamb at a MC Sniper), Army Special Forces, and goes a long way to explaine group/social behavior.
Now, expecting ANY psychologist to be more the 60% is retarded. First, not all people are the same, physically or mentaly. So what makes one tick has no effect on another. Second, no researcher is impartial enough to ignore their own bias in seeing and interpreting results. And third, people and societies change. What was valid durring Freud's (speaking of personal bias)time, may or may not, still be valid as influence and causality today.
So while I may not go as far as to call them idots, as learning and conditioning are real, and involentary, I do think they are the right wing extremists of the "applied philosophy" field.

[i]a core of truth to conditioning paradigms... hell, it works like a charm for the Marine Core (sing Mary Had A Little Lamb at a MC Sniper), Army Special Forces, and goes a long way to explain group/social behavior.[/i]

Applying that paradigm outside of military training would be illegal; therefore, the "psychologists" who concocted those theories, which can only apply during military training or by violating citizens' rights, are quacks.

[i]hell, it works like a charm for the Marine Core (sing Mary Had A Little Lamb at a MC Sniper), Army Special Forces, and goes a long way to explaine group/social behavior.
Now, expecting ANY psychologist to be more the 60% is retarded.[/i]

Marine Cor[b]ps[/b] for one, although it is pronounced like "core." There are several others, I won't point out all of them. Suffice it to say, I hope it was Happy Hour, or at least a happy hour.