his theories are unfalsifiable because you can't disagree with them, because they don't predict anything. I can theorize causes for anything that has already happened.

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

1/16/2009 12:49:31 PM

First of all, who the FUCK is Jen?

second of all, Tiberius looses the Freud/psychology argument

1/16/2009 12:53:42 PM

EMCE - I've had a tangential (to genetic evolution of simulated neural networks) interest in evolutionary psychology for years. Perhaps more importantly I recently started a psych class, so it's on my mind.

I didn't mean to imply that I was "right" because Freud would agree with me, I just meant to insinuate the (in the opinion of many evolutionary psychologists who were arguably inspired by Freud, and in the opinion of myself) under-appreciated importance of sexuality in motivating behavior.

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2009 12:59:10 PM

What argument has anyone put out there besides Tiberius's? How can he lose?

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:03 PM. Reason : Someone's being a cheerleader.]

1/16/2009 1:02:52 PM

ahahaha yeah really

terpball agrees with EMCE on the wolf web, news at 11!11

1/16/2009 1:04:55 PM

wut?

free thread?

1/16/2009 1:05:15 PM

1/16/2009 1:05:56 PM

awesome. I'm glad you're taking a psych. course. I'm sure that qualifies you for.....errr....well....running your mouth.

Freud's theories are very old and outdated. Even neo-freudians, and other decendants from his school of thought disagree with much of what he said and thought. in short no modern theory or school of thought holds much water in the realm of psychology unless you can come up with quantifiable measures to test your theories. without that, you're just sitting there making up explanaitions ad hoc.

1/16/2009 1:06:00 PM

Haha.

1/16/2009 1:07:02 PM

hey cool that's the same shit they said about Freud on the first day of class

I guess you're qualified to run your mouth too

1/16/2009 1:07:37 PM

Quote :

"Freud would certainly agree with me, at least"

This is the statement that you're arguing on the intarwebs about remember ... ?

So why are you talking about

Quote :

"Freud's theories are very old and outdated. Even neo-freudians, and other decendants from his school of thought disagree with much of what he said and thought. in short no modern theory or school of thought holds much water in the realm of psychology unless you can come up with quantifiable measures to test your theories. without that, you're just sitting there making up explanaitions ad hoc."

You have yet to address anything Tiberius has actually said.

Who's just running their mouth again?

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2009 1:08:29 PM

I guess I could NOT agree with EMCE, who majored in psych, and agree with some random idiot who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about...

Yeah, let me do that.

1/16/2009 1:08:39 PM

hey, i think this looks like a free thread!

1/16/2009 1:08:40 PM

JEN!! POST 6000 in here!!

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM. Reason : does that get us back on topic?]

1/16/2009 1:09:27 PM

sweet

I'm glad the people that are TEACHING you agree with me. Maybe you should pay attention in class and learn something.

1/16/2009 1:10:08 PM

seriously, who the fuck is jen

1/16/2009 1:10:12 PM

Quote :

"in short no modern theory or school of thought holds much water in the realm of psychology unless you can come up with quantifiable measures to test your theories. without that, you're just sitting there making up explanaitions ad hoc."

lol behaviorism

Also, for someone that majored in psych I am disappointed that your argument seems to have been covered entirely in the first week of my intro level class, and completely disregarded everything I said to provide unrelated text book definitions. I'd love to hear any thoughts of substance someone with your apparent qualification has regarding the behavior previously described, as my interest is genuine at this point, but instead I get character assassination.

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:34 PM. Reason : have have]

1/16/2009 1:30:40 PM

the way this thread is going Tiberius will have his 6000th post in here before Jen does

1/16/2009 1:42:23 PM

I didn't describe anything remotely close to a behaviorist theory. Behaviorism is almost as dead as Freud.

And why would it surpise you that what I said about Freud was covered in your into. psych course? His theories were dismissed a long time ago, as he is regarded as history at this point.
Seriously, that's like you asking " why haven't there been any new developments in muskets since semi-automatic weapons were invented?!?!"

Most research, models, and theories come in the realm of neuro, cognitive, social, to some degree clinical, and of course HF psych.

1/16/2009 1:45:04 PM

It was so nice when tiberius didn't post.

This guy is always on the rag.

1/16/2009 1:45:12 PM

hi pot

1/16/2009 1:48:16 PM

meet kettle

1/16/2009 1:48:33 PM

Guys, I don't even have a cycle.
I'm a bitch, pure and simple. I've never tried to hide that

1/16/2009 1:49:20 PM

we're going to have to settle this in a walk off

1/16/2009 1:50:17 PM

OMG! DAVID BOWIE!!!!

1/16/2009 1:51:09 PM

Widescreen FTL

1/16/2009 1:51:36 PM

Quote :

"I didn't describe anything remotely close to a behaviorist theory."

lol

ok

let's take that trip to Wikipedia, then, EMCE

Quote :

""in short no modern theory or school of thought holds much water in the realm of psychology unless you can come up with quantifiable measures to test your theories. without that, you're just sitting there making up explanaitions ad hoc."

From early psychology in the 19th century, the behaviorist school of thought ... blah blah blah... main influences were Ivan Pavlov, who investigated classical conditioning, Edward Lee Thorndike, John B. Watson who rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology to experimental methods

What you described read to me as a falsifiable, or scientific, treatment of psychological phenomena, which one might go so far as to say originated in the behaviorist school of thought.

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : [i][b]]

1/16/2009 1:54:52 PM

I can dere-lick my own balls, thank you very much.

1/16/2009 1:55:39 PM

cognitive, psychoacoustic, social, HF, and clinical theories measure blood flow, ERPs, reaction times, errors, memory span, dissonance, fatigue, synaptic firing, auditory streams, resonance, etc
....NONE of which are considered close to the realm of a behaviorist theory.

seriously kid. stop talking. you're trying so hard to be right, but failing miserably.

1/16/2009 2:01:43 PM

Tib just got punkd, LOL.

1/16/2009 2:03:10 PM

Quote :

"cognitive, psychoacoustic, social, HF, and clinical theories measure blood flow, ERPs, reaction times, errors, memory span, dissonance, fatigue, synaptic firing, auditory streams, resonance, etc ....NONE of which are considered close to the realm of a behaviorist theory."

NONE of which you mentioned until just then

point being?

1/16/2009 2:05:49 PM

point being quantifiable measures are basically needed to credit any study or theory, but aren't a decisive mark of behavioralism.


JUST GIVE IT UP, KID

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : I give up. This is like stepping on ants.]

1/16/2009 2:10:57 PM

Don't give up yet, I'm willing to submit the point. Let me restate the debate and our conclusions right quick for clarity.

Freud would disagree with me that the behavior earlier in the thread was sexually motivated. Evolutionary psychology does not embrace the sexual thematics of his writing, because he was completely wrong about everything. Behaviorism has nothing to do with the scientific study of psychological phenomena and was certainly not the first school of thought advocating this. In fact, because cognitive, psychoacoustic, social, HF, and clinical theories measure blood flow, ERPs, reaction times, errors, memory span, dissonance, fatigue, synaptic firing, auditory streams, resonance, etc these scientific approaches were in no way inspired by behaviorism.

Am I missing anything?

I may have to print this thread out and ask my professor what I am misunderstanding, because if what you say is true it's almost like I was tripping acid during the last few lectures

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2009 2:26:53 PM

1/16/2009 2:35:14 PM

well at least this thread isnt whoring for jens attention anymore

1/16/2009 2:44:34 PM

FREE THREAD!

1/16/2009 4:07:26 PM

JEN

SERIOUS BUSINESS

1/16/2009 4:16:28 PM

lol, more like

JENTERNET

SERIOUS BUSINESS

1/16/2009 4:17:45 PM

imagine a world where she went to bed with a post count that was a multiple of 100

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

1/16/2009 4:23:20 PM

what the fuck does that even mean

1/16/2009 4:24:19 PM

lul read the first post

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

1/16/2009 4:25:21 PM

YAY! JENTERNET!!! I can dig it!

1/16/2009 4:25:33 PM

God damn. I just happened to look at the girls profile and see 5999 posts. The path this thread has taken is a very pleasant surprise.

1/16/2009 4:25:33 PM

you made have an excellent and tangent worthy thread. gg!

1/16/2009 4:26:20 PM

how sad, who gives a fuck, for real

1/16/2009 4:31:17 PM

^

1/16/2009 4:31:56 PM

WTF is 5999 posts supposed to mean?!

1/16/2009 4:32:34 PM

80085 posts

1/16/2009 4:32:55 PM

this thread is hilarious

1/16/2009 4:33:59 PM

1/16/2009 4:34:12 PM