the analysis in scott's most recent post i think is completely wrong. should i write a post explaining why and what i think is going on instead
Conversation
That it's possible for fear to be non-aversive doesn't seem to affect his central point, I think? Even if it's possible for it to be non-aversive (and I agree it is), for nearly all people there are contexts in which it isn't, and that's enough to drive motivated reasoning.
2
4
Replying to
the point i’m arguing against is scott’s claim that there are two kinds of learning and that reinforcement learning could be “mis-applied” - there’s just one kind of learning and it gets applied to internal states sometimes and that’s enough to drive motivated reasoning
i’m so confused but tbc this is the sentence i think is the most wrong. maybe i should just write the post 😅
1
2
Show replies