> They are English words, and implicit vs. explicit goals really isn’t all that hard to understand.
The problem isn't that they are hard to understand, the problem is that they have nothing to do with what anyone was talking about. When someone says, "Persevering in goals can alleviate negative feelings", saying "Explicit goals can distract from implicit goals" isn't a response, it's a non-sequitur.
> Being skeptical and negative and doubtful isn’t a hallmark of intelligence, mind you.
Being skeptical and doubtful are definitely hallmarks of intelligence. The alternative to skepticism is blind faith. The alternative to doubt is unjustified confidence.
In the rest of your post you've decided to attack me personally, to which my only response is going to be: you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks?
They don't have to be, but in the absence of evidence, they are. That's just true by the definitions of the words.
Put another way: not all faith is blind, but faith without skepticism is blind faith; not all confidence is unjustified, but in the confidence without justification (evidence) is unjustified.
The problem isn't that they are hard to understand, the problem is that they have nothing to do with what anyone was talking about. When someone says, "Persevering in goals can alleviate negative feelings", saying "Explicit goals can distract from implicit goals" isn't a response, it's a non-sequitur.
> Being skeptical and negative and doubtful isn’t a hallmark of intelligence, mind you.
Being skeptical and doubtful are definitely hallmarks of intelligence. The alternative to skepticism is blind faith. The alternative to doubt is unjustified confidence.
In the rest of your post you've decided to attack me personally, to which my only response is going to be: you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks?