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.
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.
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.
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.
In this reply, you are wholly dismissive of discussions about behavior that do not solely use behavior analysis.
Attempting to evade this through being pedantic rather supports my point.
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.
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.