In that same paragraph you quote from, you dismissed the author's reasoning about thinking processes. You didn't simply 'offer an alternative'.
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.