It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind.
I wish you luck in persuading people to accept this philosophy. You may have an uphill struggle convincing people that it is comprehensive enough to replace all the other ways humans have thought about their experiences to date.
>"It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind."
That's not what I think. See the difficulty in inferring someone else's thoughts? ;)
If we are just theorizing or talking about what the mind is and so on, then this belongs in the realm of philosophy.
Behavior analysis is alive and well on the psychological scene. APA's lifetime achievement award this year went to an applied behavior analyst. If behaving is doing and behavior is the subject matter of behavior analysis, that's pretty comprehensive.
It may not be what you think, but you continue to argue (condescendingly) that behavior analysis is the only valid approach to any topic concerning human behavior. Now you do so by an appeal to authority.
Have you considered the possibility that some philosophy might actually be useful in this domain?
[incidentally: I have nothing against behavioral analysis in itself - just the claim that thinking about what goes on in the mind should be excluded in its favor]
My bad for coming off as condescending. That wasn't my intention. Philosophy is useful when talking about or discussing things. The problem with philosophy though is it doesn't allow one to predict and control behavior. Thus, if practical behavior change is your goal then behavior analysis is appropriate.
Prediction and control is what science rests on whether we're talking about behavior or physics. You can't prove that an independent variable (IV) caused a change in a dependent variable (e.g., behavior) unless you can predict and control it by systematically manipulating the IV while observing changes in the DV.
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.
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 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.
> "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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
You 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.
I wish you luck in persuading people to accept this philosophy. You may have an uphill struggle convincing people that it is comprehensive enough to replace all the other ways humans have thought about their experiences to date.