If the valuation feels unreasonably high then I'll try to negotiate, or I'll just pass. If the valuation is low and results in too much dilution, then I'll try to figure out with the founder if they can make progress with less money/dilution, or I'll just pass -- because overdiluting sucks for the founder and will also eventually suck for me as an investor by capping the upside.
I think this framing works for the founder, too: if you need $X for your near term plans, and you're getting a fair valuation that doesn't overdilute you, then that's good. If the valuation is unfairly low, try to find other options. If it's unreasonably high, then that's okay if you are good with cash management -- but be mindful that the higher your current valuation, the higher investors' expectations will be for your next round.
As an ex-founder I never understood why people make this argument because it's completely symmetric. I.e. I could rephrase it as "I imagine if a company becomes enormous, I'd care less whether my outcome was $200m or $250m as a VC"
I agree with the advice in the article but would phrase it slightly differently -- work hard to structure your company such that you can get away with raising as much as you need and still give away only 10%-15% each round. (Or, yet another way to put it, build a company so successful that you can dictate the terms)