[travjones]

Hahaha I don't think putting stimulus generalization in parentheses makes my explanation any more complex. I explained the phenomenon in 2-3 simple sentences and then I used two words that could substitute for those 2-3 sentences--stimulus generalization.

If you compare our two analyses some of the claims you make cannot be tested via experimentation, such as "convoluted unnecessary cognitive path." I'm not sure what that means, how we would determine if the user has gone down that route, or how we would measure the convolution of a "cognitive path."

Nonetheless, I like this discussion. I think UX is really cool and represents a great application for applied behavior analysis.

[vacri]

That 'convoluted cognitive path' is a qualitative assessment of what the presenter is describing in the seminar. You don't need some measure of convolutedness to see it touches a number of different cognitive aspects.

But if it's robust testing you're after, then you should be railing against the seminar altogether. A self-selected, self-reported study done on the internet, with zero way to identify demographic accuracy? An assumption that puerility like '[e-mail]' are only done by teenagers? An assumption that "it's really easy to tell when someone's messing with you", which just means you can't detect the subtler trolls? This isn't experimentation, it's a survey, and it's been interpreted with a lot of cognitive bias, with the researcher projecting a lot of assumed meaning. It's certainly better than nothing, but it's not robust at all.

[travjones]

First paragraph: You're still making major assumptions.

Second paragraph: I concur, sir!