Great, I've got one of those too. It doesn't mean you can't bullshit.

I wasn't making a value judgement on the piece (or the author's credentials). My point was that someone took the time to share something with the world and you dismissed it after making (incorrect) assumptions about their background. You'll miss out on a lot of good stuff if you've already cast judgement before you finish reading the title.

In any case, it's a <3min read and it does offer a few non-BS pieces of advice that may be useful to some.

Of all the appeals to authority, this has to be among the weakest.

I was not highlighting the author's background to appeal to authority. I was pointing out that what OP dismissed as "coder philosophy drivel" (likely from skimming the title and nothing else) was written by someone who has nothing to do with that field.

In fact, by doing that, OP made an anti-appeal-to-authority. You seem to be interested in logical fallacies.. could you help me out and tell me if that one has a specific name?

So we can replace "coder philosophy drivel" with "psychologist philosophy drivel". Doesn't seem to change much.

Sure, you seem intent on making a point that has nothing to do with OP's assertion or my observation, so go for it. (That's a strawman fallacy, right?)

So? It's not a field known for solid, repeatable science.

Nor does it stop author from believing his own lies.

Wasn't my point at all, see my other responses.