Ten meanings or usages of the terms molecular and molar analyses are based on (1) numbers of responses, (2) durations of activities, (3) levels, (4) scales, (5) contiguity versus correlation, (6) behavioral standards, (7) function with or without structure, (8) local versus global phenomena, and (9) control by shaping of sequential moment‐to‐moment behavior. These usages reveal divisive viewpoints along with ambiguities in the Law of Effect, the definition of an operant, response strength, response probability, random behavior, time allocation, shaping, controlled versus uncontrolled operants, and roles for ordinary language. Usage 10 is less divisive and combines, and in that sense unifies, molecular behavior, defined as shaped moment‐to‐moment sequential behaving, and molar, defined as averages of aggregates of those shaped responses. It combines shaping, that establishes and changes operant behaviors, and strengthening that changes the amounts of those shaped behaviors. I conclude that general behavioral theory will combine strengthening with such methods as parametric, hybrid, or nonparametric shaping, and will use computational methods to simulate moment‐to‐moment behavior streams from which any aggregates of theoretical interest may be computed. Such a synthesis may not require different levels, scales, or new scientific paradigms.