Pattern matching may be a distinctly computer science term, but that's just a using a familiar concept to approximate the foreign psychology concepts the poster is trying to reach for. It's pretty unfair to criticize "CS people" (or any field of knowledge) for leveraging existing knowledge when they engage in the very not-CS pursuit of breaking the components of the human mind, thought process or whatever you want to call it.
But overzealous simplifications are detrimental to knowledge.
Well then why not post the relevant pysch/sociology resources on the topic? When you say "I can't believe that..." you're engaging in exactly the sort of speculative simplifications you're criticizing.
> Pattern matching may be a distinctly computer science term, but that's just a using a familiar concept to approximate the foreign psychology concepts the poster is trying to reach for.
I don't mind the using a different term, that's OK. What I mind is that, in the process of using certain terms or concepts, people make broad assumptions such as the one that was made (that this is mostly pattern matching - we can't assume that).
But overzealous simplifications are detrimental to knowledge.
Well then why not post the relevant pysch/sociology resources on the topic? When you say "I can't believe that..." you're engaging in exactly the sort of speculative simplifications you're criticizing.