18 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What about the COW TOOLS cartoon? 

 

That one seems a bit more obscure than most. 

 

Your explanation? 

 

 

Cow body

Human brain

 

Larson pretended animals had human brains

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

Cow body

Human brain

 

Larson pretended animals had human brains

What about the variety of tools chosen by Larson for this cartoon? 

 

The cow seems to be using a saw with nipples rather than saw teeth, for example. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What about the variety of tools chosen by Larson for this cartoon? 

 

 

Ask AI

3 minutes ago, bignok said:

Ask AI

I don't use Bard to ask his opinion on anything. 

 

I use Bard to help recall what I once knew, but have partially forgotten, such as the title of a book, or the name of a theory, or some author I have forgotten. 

 

Bard can be very helpful in this usage of AI. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

What do you call it when a person has not been given enough attention by their parents while growing up, so when they grow, spend so much of their time trying for the attention of others?

I think we need to reference Freud to understand this:

 

In the young boy, the Oedipus complex or more correctly, conflict, arises because the boy develops unconscious sexual (pleasurable) desires for his mother.

 

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I think we need to reference Freud to understand this:

 

In the young boy, the Oedipus complex or more correctly, conflict, arises because the boy develops unconscious sexual (pleasurable) desires for his mother.

 

You have two choices. 

a. Reference Freud 

b. Reference JT 

 

It ups to you. 

 

Or, watch the film, Hannah and Her Sisters. Woody is magnificent. 

 

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What about the variety of tools chosen by Larson for this cartoon? 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't have access to specific cartoons or the ability to view or analyze visual content. To provide you with information or analysis about Larson's choice of tools for a particular cartoon, I would need a detailed description of the cartoon and its elements. However, I can provide general information about cartooning techniques or discuss Gary Larson's work if that would be helpful to you. Please provide more context or details if you have a specific question in mind.

22 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

You have two choices. 

a. Reference Freud 

b. Reference JT 

 

It ups to you. 

 

Or, watch the film, Hannah and Her Sisters. Woody is magnificent. 

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Thurstan?

25 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I think we need to reference Freud to understand this:

 

In the young boy, the Oedipus complex or more correctly, conflict, arises because the boy develops unconscious sexual (pleasurable) desires for his mother.

 

"Statistically, it's conceivable that a man can be as dishonest and slippery as Freud and still come up with something true," Crews said. "I've tried my best to examine his theories and to ask the question: What was the empirical evidence behind them? But when you ask these questions, then you eventually just lose hope."

 

Freud was not a scientist. 

He was a nutcase. 

 

I am surprised that you would put any credence in his "theories". 

 

Maybe you should read more Freud, before quoting Freud. Or, read more about what present day scientists write about Freud, and what Freud might have thought to be true. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

Jonathan Thurstan?

So. 

You are suggesting that Freud might be useful in improving Rugby skills? 

 

 

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

So. 

You are suggesting that Freud might be useful in improving Rugby skills? 

 

 

Yes they all sniff bums. Freud loved poo.

I'm happy, how can I be? 

Happy for many years now, how can I be? 

 

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

I'm happy, how can I be? 

Happy for many years now, how can I be? 

 

Happy as a bumble bee

9 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Freud was not a scientist. 

He was a nutcase. 

 

I am surprised that you would put any credence in his "theories". 

my post was a joke. 

 

was freud a nutcase? 

maybe he was a genius. 

he was the person who first discovered "the subconscious mind."

 

is it provable scientifically?

is it bs?

I'm not sure, but just because it isn't provable scientifically doesn't mean it's bs. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What about the COW TOOLS cartoon? 

 

That one seems a bit more obscure than most. 

 

Your explanation? 

 

 

I read his explanation. Almost as obscure as the cartoon. I think that was the point. It was a kind of "one hand clapping"

13 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I'm happy, how can I be? 

Happy for many years now, how can I be? 

 

Why would you wish to repeatedly question a good thing? 

 

 

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

my post was a joke. 

 

was freud a nutcase? 

maybe he was a genius. 

he was the person who first discovered "the subconscious mind."

 

is it provable scientifically?

is it bs?

I'm not sure, but just because it isn't provable scientifically doesn't mean it's bs. 

 

 

 

It simply means that it's NOT science. 

 

 

Were you neglected as a child, GG???

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Why would you wish to repeatedly question a good thing? 

 

 

You should always be aware of your statusQ! And why it is! I do not take happiness for granted, but I'm great full for the state being, and I will work hard to maintain it!

2 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Were you neglected as a child, GG???

No. 

 

Life was not that interesting for me. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

I read his explanation. Almost as obscure as the cartoon. I think that was the point. It was a kind of "one hand clapping"

Ahhh! 

 

21 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

I read his explanation. Almost as obscure as the cartoon. I think that was the point. It was a kind of "one hand clapping"

Some people loath it.

And some people love it.

Which are you?

 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I think we need to reference Freud to understand this:

 

In the young boy, the Oedipus complex or more correctly, conflict, arises because the boy develops unconscious sexual (pleasurable) desires for his mother.

 

Aha,a Freudian nip!

9 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

It simply means that it's NOT science. 

 

 

yeah, but maybe he was too deep for you.

doesn't mean he was a nutcase. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

yeah, but maybe he was too deep for you.

doesn't mean he was a nutcase. 

I DO agree that Freud is deep.

But only if one is talking about being in DEEP Doo-Doo.

 

Freud is NOT science, if one is referring to the scientific-method sense of science.

Freud, and Freud practitioners have caused untold harm to humanity and to society.

Freud is a religion, based on faith, and nothing more.

 

Here is why:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-were-still-fighting-over-freud/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930904/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5459228/

 

The bottom line is this:

Even today, therapists have just too much history, and too much invested, in the study of and the practice of the theories of Freud.

 

We are gradually making progress removing Freud from the serious discourse of science, but...

 

I think it will still require decades before we can FULLY Wipe this Doo-Doo, Freud, off the the bottoms of our shoes.

 

Even after we do, the Stink of Freud shall remain with us, same with other evils, such as slavery, as well as other faith-based mumbo-jumbo religions, like Christianity.

 

Let's see:

 

In Christian Doctrine, God slept with his mother, according to the Bible, and so he must be a mfkr, as well as a Freudian Oedipal Disaster.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I think it will still require decades before we can FULLY Wipe this Doo-Doo, Freud, off the the bottoms of our shoes.

Thanks. I wasn't even aware that there was such a massive smear campaign against freud by the mainstream scientific community. 

 

And since the mainstream scientific community says Freud is doo-doo, it MUST be true. 

 

Since the mainstream scientifici community is modern-day God, isn't it? 

 

I have dabbled in psychology and have come across the theory of "subconscious motivations" several times. So I have done rudimentary scientific studies myself that validate some of the things Freud says. I'm not saying all his theories are accurate.

 

But I AM saying that A LOT of stuff in journals like Scientific American is doo-doo. 

 

 

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

my post was a joke. 

 

was freud a nutcase? 

maybe he was a genius. 

he was the person who first discovered "the subconscious mind."

 

is it provable scientifically?

is it bs?

I'm not sure, but just because it isn't provable scientifically doesn't mean it's bs. 

 

 

 

I read that and I thought that he was an idiot , like a hippy smoking  weed and speaking nonsense .

  You cannot subconsciously do things , you either mean to do them or you don't mean to do them .

   He speaks like he was off his nut on chemicals 

7 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

I read that and I thought that he was an idiot , like a hippy smoking  weed and speaking nonsense .

  You cannot subconsciously do things , you either mean to do them or you don't mean to do them .

   He speaks like he was off his nut on chemicals 

Actually, much of human behavior is heavily influenced by unconscious influences, such as bias, for example.

 

Leon Festinger, my old pal, put forward his famous theory of Cognitive Dissonance, for example, which I think is a theory now respected by most people in the field of psychology.

 

The only problem is that most people, the lay audience, does NOT understand what Cognitive Dissonance means, and CD is a term in science, not a PopPsych term.

 

Cognitive Dissonance concerns stress and the reduction of stress through the defense mechanisms such as denial. We behave in ways that go contrary to what we know to be true. And thus, we resolve this stress-inducing discrepancy through DENIAL...for example.  Or, we change our behavior to become congruent with our perceptions of reality.

 

 

Brilliant 57 replies and for me 55% of content IGNORED

14 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

which I think is a theory now respected by most people in the field of psychology.

Well it either is or it isn't . 

If you think something, you may be wrong .

Is his theory respected by most people in the field of psychology or not ?