MercurySunlight

This is not gender specific, but what I would consider warning flags and deal breakers for a potential mate if I was a young person in my 20's or 30's, looking for a long term partner: 1. Cluster B personality disordered individuals. 2. Anyone who comes from a toxic family environment and has not worked through the repercussions of their FOO. 3. Those who cannot break free from past toxic environments, families, or individuals. 4. Addicts, alcoholics, porn addicts, and those who indulge in process addictions such as gambling, shopping, or hoarding. 5. If a single parent, more than one child from different partners = deal breaker. This is a tricky zone. Generally avoid, but there are rare exceptions. 6. History of adultery, promiscuity, and/or cheating on current partner. This includes emotional cheating. 7. Criminal history, especially those with theft and domestic violence. 8. Parasitic, lazy, or dishonest individuals. 9. Toxic shells. Attractive on the outside, ugly on the inside. 10. No friendship component or common interests. A partner can't simply be a resource, imo. In the best long term relationships I've witnessed, the couples viewed each other as allies. They had a lot of common ground and laughed at the same things. They always had each other's back.

Currently, there are soundboards which have taken samplings of various actors and applied them to an instant touch screen. Here is one example: http://www.crocopuffs.com/soundboard/arnold.html These are often used on YouTube for making prank calls. Here is a simple one with a conversation between "Arnold" and a telemarketer: I'm rather amazed that anyone would fall for this, yet they do. Now, the soundboards are made from actual voice samples. The more voice samples you have, the more complete you can make a soundboard and imitate someone. Just imagine what someone could do with all of Stefan's audio samples floating around out there. I don't think this would be easily accomplished without voice samples. Someone close to the person the AI was trying to imitate would be harder to fool than someone unfamiliar with the subject.

You're welcome. One thing to keep in mind, is what Cesar does is more along the lines of Social Learning and direct communication to create social harmony and a dog which is safe to be around. His work builds upon the relationship between a dog and their human social group rather than focus on teaching specific tasks or tricks. This doesn't mean that training methods cannot also be incorporated into his philosophies. A lot of what he teaches is about how our behavior affects our dog. Our behavior can cause our dogs to feel secure in our presence simply through our confidence and how we direct the activities. Often, I see people get into trouble when they spend their time reacting to what their dog is doing, rather than the other way around. I recently opened a thread to discuss Cesar's Philosophies vs Behaviorism in more depth, which you might find helpful: Good luck in your research and let us know how things are going.

Here's one article: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/why-wait-the-science-behind-procrastination There are a lot more out there. Personally, I usually do a lot of searches and explore different points of view when digging into behaviors. Humans are complex in their motivations. Sometimes, conflicts can be about control or rebellion against control. Hard to see the whole picture from an outsider's perspective. You might want to look at your relationship as a whole to see what might be going on at a deeper level.

Skidboot! Great dog and a very perceptive owner. One of my favorite man and dog stories. Here's a bit more on their history: I must confess I'm a bit partial to Blue Heelers, since my dog and best buddy, Nicky, happens to be one. Thanks Barn!

One thing I've found to be helpful when dealing with either my own or another person's behavior, is to look at it as a symptom of an underlying issue and part of a larger picture. In this case, it might be helpful to do a search regarding "the psychology of procrastination". From what I've read, there can be various sides to this issue. One has to do with how procrastination affects us personally. The other has to do with how it affects those around us.

This was a good one. The constant expectation of feedback for every little thing we post does function similarly as gambling addiction in the brain. It's such a contrast to the world I live in. Being it's a small community, we are all much more face-to-face connected. In other words, not a good idea to be rude on the road with another driver because he might just be the guy you called to fix your plumbing. Ironically, I was just given my first cell phone by someone I work for, and also help them with their dog care. I have been avoiding getting one, although it is just another tool. Not good or bad all on it's own. The walking and texting dead. Yep, good subject for the FDR team.

Let's look at this from a different perspective: Suppose there are two pedestrians, Jane and Mary. Jane texts while walking and is hit by John, and is killed. Mary also texts while walking, but she has luck, and is not hit by either John nor Winston. Are both Jane and Mary equally guilty of carelessness regarding their own lives? Is Mary less guilty because she had good luck? I guess the question for me would be: Is it moral to play the odds and count on luck in order to not cause the death of another or ourselves?

Actually, compressed air is the difference between a Scuba Diver and a Free Diver. In free diving, we are in a natural state: http://www.azurediving.com/your-lungs-scuba-diving-vs-free-diving/ I do agree that we are not whales and are not as adapted to deep water atmospheric pressure.

This is the one which first comes to mind:

In the movie, one twin sister dies and the other won't accept that it was a possible suicide. Sounds like it's about anger over abandonment and loss. The remaining sister could also be confronting herself.

I'm putting this thread in the Science & Technology section due to the fact that the opponents of Cesar's work with dogs used science as their primary argument against his philosophies. This thread could also be placed in the Education forum. When Cesar first came onto the scene back in 2004, I was originally excited to see someone approach dealing with canine social issues from a fresh perspective, and one I personally understood. Like Cesar, I spent most of my childhood years in the company of dogs rather than other children. I was able to connect with and train our family dog (mostly through trial and error) using a combination of Operant Conditioning and Classical Conditioning, without having read or studied any of what we now understand today through the scientists who were pioneers these fields of research. Later on, when I was approximately 10 years of age, a neighbor introduced me to some basic training techniques which he was using to train his retriever. I now understand what I was doing and why it worked, even though I didn't understand what I was using at the time. Over the years I learned some basics of Koehler and also studied how performing animals, such as dolphins, were trained using whistles and fish rewards. But, there was often something missing in the connection that I had experienced personally when working with my dogs, and then later with my horse. It was like the training choices were either manipulation of the animals with food, or the intimidation of the animal through harsh corrective force, with no middle ground among the training community. There also appeared to be a lack of understanding of how each individual species communicated and/or interpreted their world in their own language and psychology. Enter Cesar. I thought to myself "Wow. Isn't this great. Now we have someone who can give as a look into the dog's point of view and maybe bridge the gap between the opposing sides of the great dog training debate." How wrong I was. Attempting to discuss anything regarding his philosophies in the dog training forums and other platforms, all conversation was immediately shut down and anyone who brought up the subject, was drawn, quartered, and devoured. His philosophies and methods were deemed cruel and unscientific by the wave of new age dog trainers who often proclaimed themselves "kinder, gentler, and purely positive". The majority of his attackers were also women. I did find much more acceptance from the more Koehler based trainers, who were mostly men, but also had a fair proportion of women trainers among their ranks. Eventually, "Balanced Training" started to be incorporated and a middle ground was reached, but not with the evangelical female type trainers on what we might call the far left of dog training. Now, there is also another area outside of the dog training circles which Cesar brought to light. This was the understanding that dogs don't think like humans. Dogs have their own language and forms of communication. Dogs have their own psychology. And, although dogs can learn to understand human words, their meanings, and also human behavior, they initially view and read us in "dog". My proposal, is that Cesar is correct and a whole lot more. Cesar's work incorporates a social component which was missing from the original experiments in Operant and Classical Conditioning. I discovered this Social Learning component through the work of Professor Albert Bandura back in around 2009, or slightly before. And, I'm clearly not the only one who made this discovery. Back when I was doing random searches of "social learning dogs" there was only one experiment out there having to do with dogs learning from other dogs in a sort of "V" maze. Today, this same search will lead to the mention of Albert Bandura and how his experiments in Social Learning can be applied to dogs. Any thoughts, arguments, and/or personal experiences are most welcome.