Not the OP and not in any way an expert, but the way I read it: the original post is completely correct -- insofar as it has been written. One could think, "I have examined it and determined it to be completely without merit". Having done so, there is no further need to examine -- because it is without merit. This is obvious.
On the other hand, you can think of it like the proverbial box, of which we are often encouraged to think outside. You can examine the entire box and discover that it holds nothing. But if you never look at the outside of the box, perhaps you will never see what others find valuable.
To bring it back to more concrete terms, to the extent that the original poster is looking to find a pavlovian response, they will find it. And from there, the rest follows by simple logic. But if you are looking for something else (or, in fact, nothing), then perhaps you will find something else.
I often find this when I talk about more technical topics; TDD, for instance. TDD is often a waste of time when applied the way many people apply it. Having studied a lot about TDD, many people are wedded to the definition they have created. Eventually they get disillusioned when it doesn't work. When they examine it, they realise that it can't work. That is the expert's mind. But the secret is that they are not doing TDD. If they throw away the expert's mind (in other words, don't do it the way that doesn't work), they have a chance of discovering TDD that works.
Disclaimer: I meditate and enjoy it. TDD helps me be more productive. YMMV.