3 ms·

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

• 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.
          • gress 11y ago
            Now you are being intellectually dishonest. You didn't use the term behavioral analysis in that specific reply. True, you used he word science, but this is irrelevant to the fact that you were dismissive. Attempting to evade this through being pedantic rather supports my point.
            • travjones 11y ago
              I'm not being intellectually dishonest nor am I being pedantic. That's kind of offensive. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that behavior analysis was THE ONLY way to conceptualize "the mind" or whatever we are talking about at this point. Yet, that's what you're accusing me of saying. It's ridiculous because all of our words are above. I don't want to argue with you, but you're wrong. Nonetheless, you are arguing with me. You responded to my comment. I would rather you not tell me what I think or what what I said, when the facts don't show it.
              • 11y ago