In the first response to the article about the "Rex" and "Albert" hypothesis, by definition is credible. Credible is basically being plausible; convincing. Votes, however, are made by people who liked the article or agree with it, which is opinion by individuals, but obviously shows that they were convinced. The fact that the writer has lived and read over 200 self-improvement books shows that he's knowledgeable in the subject.
I agree with the opinion that there are different parts of the brain that control different aspects of thinking, however I disagree with the overall logic. I have a large problem with procrastination, however it is not in every aspect of my life. I have a very good work ethic, and as such don't procrastinate when it comes to work related activities. However when it comes to school I am a very big procrastinator, some might say school is work, in my mind the two are completely separate entities. This is the way it is with many things in my life, some things I procrastinate on constantly, others I get them done right away, it just depends on the situation. In the article, the way it came off to me is that if you have this problem it will be a problem in every aspect of your life because there is one source controlling it all.
His audience is everybody who has a problem with procrastination in any aspect of their life regardless of age, his direct audience is the person who asked the original question. The writer's purpose is to get information out to help people understand and hopefully find ways to fight their problems with procrastination.
In the end it doesn't really persuade me to do anything, most of his suggestions I already try to do off my own experience with the issue, some of them work in some situations, but not in others.
