Which is neither here not there, it's a general observation.

Anything particularly flawed about his argument in TFA (or him as a person)?

As the other poster commented the article lays down some flaws in Niels’s logic however I don’t have sufficient intimate knowledge of what Niels fully “believed” in.

That said early QM had a lot of metaphysical stuff in it for example CCC had a pretty substantial following at the time due to some of the prominent people that supported it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpret...

However it’s highly unlikely that the Avon Neumann interpretation is correct given what we know about QM, in fact it was highly unlikely back when the interpretation was initially conjectured.

And this brings me to a personal anecdote I don’t believe that Consciousness Causes Collapse is a correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, I don’t actually have sufficient faculties to argue with someone like Von Neumann on this matter however it just sounds utterly stupid and rediculous to me that a consciousness would be required for QM effects to be manifested.

This is an utterly flawed and poorly constructed logic but I am most likely right in my assumption.

The author of the article pointed out the circular reasoning in the argument, so that's probably a good place to start.

Well, if it didn't cost EUR 30.69 to view the article, I would.

There is a link to SciHub in the thread here you go: http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8106-6_...

I don't think anyone here paid $40 to read it most people just know to go to SciHub and search for the article :)