4 ms·

Prediction and control is not the only paradigm for causing behavior change, indeed it may frequently be the least appropriate one.

by gress 11y ago

travjones 11y ago
Prediction and control is what science rests on whether we're talking about behavior or physics. You can't prove that an independent variable (IV) caused a change in a dependent variable (e.g., behavior) unless you can predict and control it by systematically manipulating the IV while observing changes in the DV. However, this is way beyond the scope of the original blog post or my original comment. In my first comment, I offered an alternative description of a phenomenon that the author described. You suggested that I was advocating for "strict behaviorism." That wasn't the case, so I clarified. At this point, I'm not sure what the purpose of this discussion is.
- gress 11y ago
  The purpose is to point out that people sharing information about how they think about things is a valid a way of influencing behavior. You are simply wrong to dismiss that. I agree that humans influencing each other through talking about how they think about things is a hard phenomenon to reduce to the kind of science that you are advocating, but that is a limitation of your preferred methods, and it's inappropriate to dismiss phenomena just because you don't have a good way to understand them.
  - travjones 11y ago
    > "The purpose is to point out that people sharing information about how they think about things is a valid a way of influencing behavior. You are simply wrong to dismiss that." I agree that people sharing information about how they think about things may INFLUENCE behavior. In your previous comment you used the term "cause." These are very different words, especially when we are talking about science. It's not clear what you think I dismissed. > "inappropriate to dismiss phenomena just because you don't have a good way to understand them." I never suggested that we dismiss phenomena. If you read my original comment, I agreed with the authors general premise but I offered an alternative explanation: "This phenomenon is better described by the concept of immediacy of reinforcement. As one decreases the delay to reinforcement, the strength of behavior maintained by that reinforcer increases." Thus, I'm not sure what your point is.
    - gress 11y ago
      In that same paragraph you quote from, you dismissed the author's reasoning about thinking processes. You didn't simply 'offer an alternative'.
      - travjones 11y ago
        You are incorrect. I did not dismiss the author's reasoning. I said: "We could not confirm or disconfirm this as truth, say in the context of an experiment." The author isn't running an experiment, he's just talking about how he feels when he does things quickly. So what's your point? My point in the original comment about the concept of immediacy of reinforcement is that it is a broader, evidence-based concept that encompasses what the author described. I thought HN users might get value from such an explanation as they could apply it to more aspects of their lives than just "doing things quickly." It seems as though your purpose is to argue with me over things I didn't say or ideas I don't hold, which isn't productive or meaningful to the HN community.
        gress 11y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024791 In this reply, you are wholly dismissive of discussions about behavior that do not solely use behavior analysis.
        travjones 11y ago
        First, that's not the reply you were talking about when you stated that I was being dismissive above. Yet, your interpretation is still wrong. Second, except for the first sentence I didn't even use the term "behavior analysis" and instead used the term "science." Nowhere in that reply did I suggest that "discussions about behavior that do not solely use behavior analysis" should be dismissed. Throughout this discussion, you have attempted to mischaracterize my statements and your most recent reply is another example. Thus, I'm not sure what your point is other than attempting to build a strawman and blow it down.

Prediction and control is not the only paradigm for causing behavior change, indeed it may frequently be the least appropriate one.

by gress 11y ago

Prediction and control is not the only paradigm for causing behavior change, indeed it may frequently be the least appropriate one.

travjones 11y ago

Prediction and control is what science rests on whether we're talking about behavior or physics. You can't prove that an independent variable (IV) caused a change in a dependent variable (e.g., behavior) unless you can predict and control it by systematically manipulating the IV while observing changes in the DV. However, this is way beyond the scope of the original blog post or my original comment. In my first comment, I offered an alternative description of a phenomenon that the author described. You suggested that I was advocating for "strict behaviorism." That wasn't the case, so I clarified. At this point, I'm not sure what the purpose of this discussion is.

gress 11y ago
The purpose is to point out that people sharing information about how they think about things is a valid a way of influencing behavior. You are simply wrong to dismiss that. I agree that humans influencing each other through talking about how they think about things is a hard phenomenon to reduce to the kind of science that you are advocating, but that is a limitation of your preferred methods, and it's inappropriate to dismiss phenomena just because you don't have a good way to understand them.
- travjones 11y ago
  > "The purpose is to point out that people sharing information about how they think about things is a valid a way of influencing behavior. You are simply wrong to dismiss that." I agree that people sharing information about how they think about things may INFLUENCE behavior. In your previous comment you used the term "cause." These are very different words, especially when we are talking about science. It's not clear what you think I dismissed. > "inappropriate to dismiss phenomena just because you don't have a good way to understand them." I never suggested that we dismiss phenomena. If you read my original comment, I agreed with the authors general premise but I offered an alternative explanation: "This phenomenon is better described by the concept of immediacy of reinforcement. As one decreases the delay to reinforcement, the strength of behavior maintained by that reinforcer increases." Thus, I'm not sure what your point is.
  - gress 11y ago
    In that same paragraph you quote from, you dismissed the author's reasoning about thinking processes. You didn't simply 'offer an alternative'.
    - travjones 11y ago
      You are incorrect. I did not dismiss the author's reasoning. I said: "We could not confirm or disconfirm this as truth, say in the context of an experiment." The author isn't running an experiment, he's just talking about how he feels when he does things quickly. So what's your point? My point in the original comment about the concept of immediacy of reinforcement is that it is a broader, evidence-based concept that encompasses what the author described. I thought HN users might get value from such an explanation as they could apply it to more aspects of their lives than just "doing things quickly." It seems as though your purpose is to argue with me over things I didn't say or ideas I don't hold, which isn't productive or meaningful to the HN community.
      - gress 11y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024791 In this reply, you are wholly dismissive of discussions about behavior that do not solely use behavior analysis.
        travjones 11y ago
        First, that's not the reply you were talking about when you stated that I was being dismissive above. Yet, your interpretation is still wrong. Second, except for the first sentence I didn't even use the term "behavior analysis" and instead used the term "science." Nowhere in that reply did I suggest that "discussions about behavior that do not solely use behavior analysis" should be dismissed. Throughout this discussion, you have attempted to mischaracterize my statements and your most recent reply is another example. Thus, I'm not sure what your point is other than attempting to build a strawman and blow it down.