Good-
Penny & Leonard apparently are past their awkwardness- enough to actually cause damage.
Sheldon’s “Chocolate?”
Leonard’s objections to said chocolates
Bad- the wasted potential of Wolowitz & Raj among the Goths.
The second Sheldon first gave Penny a chocolate I started cracking up. And I felt smart that I 100% understood a science joke on the show.
I agree the goth thing could have been funnier. Although the tattoo sleeves were good.
One problem with putting PLS with HR is that Raj still can’t talk in front of women unless he’s drinking. I don’t think Kunal Nayyar would appreciate never having lines. If Penny is around even more I’m not sure what they’re gonna do.
“Yes, but you’ll catch the most flies with manure, so what’s your point?”
[QUOTE]
I’ve often thought the quote should “you’ll catch even more flies with rotting meat” added on, so I was very pleased that the writers were thinking something I had contemplated.
They successfully hooked Howard up with the Girlfriend Experience in Vegas, though of course they had to pay for that. Speaking of which, I was glad that they let Howard bang the hooker; I get annoyed when tv characters all of a sudden break character to conform to network standards.
Other than that, I would prepare yourself for further disappointments. It is in a guy’s nature to keep hitting on women, and it is in the nerd’s nature to keep getting shot down. It would be akin to getting tired of Michael Scott making situations awkward on The Office; it’s part of the premise.
If anything, I’d say The Big Bang Theory is closer to Seinfeld in that the guys seem to hook up out of their league too regularly.
Hilarious episode! I loved the, “If that’s supposed to be Morse Code, you’re doing a terrible job.”
I was surprised to realize Sheldon was…well, wrong about something. When he was describing operant conditioning and how using positive reinforcement, he could have Penny doing the desired behavior in a few days; using negative reinforcement, he could do it in a few hours. Now, it wasn’t explicitly stated enough to be certain of his meaning, but it seemed to suggest (for humor’s sake) that if he made things nasty for her, he could get the results desired faster.
That’s a common misunderstanding of the term “negative reinforcement.” It is NOT punishment. Rather, it’s the removal of a negative stimulus as a reward for desired behavior. Like…if you press this button, that really annoying ear worm of a song will stop playing–as opposed to, if you DON’T press that button, I’m zapping you with a cattle prod.
I was stunned I remembered enough psychology 101 to realize he was wrong, but, bah. He’s not a behaviorist anyway, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Oh thank you for also noticing. I was like “wait a second he means punishment…” but then forgot about it because I wasn’t watching with anyone that gave a shit so I didn’t talk about it.