3 ms·
In that same paragraph you quote from, you dismissed the author's reasoning about thinking processes. You didn't simply 'offer an alternative'.
by 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 agoYou 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 agohttps://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 agoFirst, 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 agoNow 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 agoI'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.
- gress 11y agoI'm not wrong about you being dismissive of anything except what you deem to be 'scientific'.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- travjones 11y agoYou are wrong. I'm not sure what your claim is now, but you were accusing me of suggesting "that behavior analysis is the only valid approach to any topic concerning human behavior." Nowhere in any of my posts did I make that claim. This makes your quote factually incorrect. This discussion (which has now devolved into an argument) began when you stated that I was "advocating a return to strict behaviorism." This was also incorrect, so I clarified. I honestly don't have a problem with you, but you have been kind of attacking me in this thread. When you told me that my tone was condescending, I apologized because I know that my words can have an affect on people that I didn't intend. At this point you are offending me by claiming I said things I didn't say and attempting to characterize me as someone who ignores all viewpoints except for BA. Yet, our entire conversation is recorded above and does not support your claims.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]