[andrewflnr]

I explained the part of my model that actually exists quite explicitly. Perhaps you are making unwarranted assumptions about my assumptions? (Two can play the snarky pseudo-Socratic question game)

[mistermann]

Perhaps I am, and I would very much like to know what those are if you don't mind sharing.

But for clarity: do you believe your performance here to be error free?

[andrewflnr]

Oh, you can make smug insinuations about how I'm misunderstanding you, but you expect me to be fully explicit. I've said all I'm going to.

[mistermann]

Your dependence on rhetoric and presenting speculation as fact is unsurprising.

If the mind is like muscles and needs exercise to become stronger, this culturally normal approach may not be to our long term advantage.

[andrewflnr]

...says the guy who refused to make an actual argument on the original topic.

[mistermann]

Here you are correct.

Making a counter-assertion of fact is not a requirement. In fact, making claims of fact when one lacks the expertise is generally a poor idea, though it is extremely popular.

If you are so smart, why can you not answer simple questions about your facts?

Possibly related:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41840390

[andrewflnr]

I already tried answering your initial question about my reasoning, and you responded with meandering snark. Now you pretend I'm the unreasonable one for not treating any of your other "questions" seriously. If you wanted a real discussion, you could have said something of interest at that point, maybe made an actual claim about cultural influence or prioritizing problems in the social media landscape or somesuch, even just a hypothetical idea. But you've shown you don't actually want to exchange ideas, you just want to feel clever and righteous.