Your hundreds of comments on this, all saying the same thing and replicating themselves like weeds in any remotely related context, have become so excessive that I need to ask you to stop using HN this way.
We all respect your fabulous software work, but HN threads are for conversation. Nothing spoils good conversation like obsessive repetition. Taken as a whole, your comments on this matter are not conversation, they are a harangue—apparently an interminable one. Harangue is off-topic here, regardless of whether you're right or not.
Many of us are tired of seeing HN used as a popsci soapbox. As you likely know, this forum consistently upvotes rigor-less trials and unreproducible experiments.
It's interesting to perceive "wrong conversation" as more valuable than "correct statements" and is very telling about HN's current role.
You know, starting out with a wild exaggeration, an "alternative fact," undermines your otherwise meritorious point.
> ... I need to ask you to stop using HN this way.
In what way -- conversations about psychology? On what basis? HN regulars often post links to psychology articles -- people don't complain about that (and IMHO they shouldn't, because most are newsworthy). And by definition, comments about those articles are as topical as the articles themselves.
Also, I never originate exchanges about psychology, I only respond to threads introduced/posted by others. If psychology were never an established topic here, I would never address it. This means you're objecting to a particular viewpoint on the topic, not the topic itself.
> We all respect your fabulous software work, but HN threads are for conversation.
Indeed they are. Case in point -- this conversation.
Solely for balance you might consider objecting to the large number of psychology articles posted here. I'm not recommending this -- I only say this to try to get you to examine your position.
The number is higher than I would have guessed, but they're certainly not saying "the same thing." In many cases they're included in the search results only because of the presence of the word "psychology" without any discussion of the topic at all.
We all respect your fabulous software work, but HN threads are for conversation. Nothing spoils good conversation like obsessive repetition. Taken as a whole, your comments on this matter are not conversation, they are a harangue—apparently an interminable one. Harangue is off-topic here, regardless of whether you're right or not.