This article does not seem to apply the same standards to itself that it purports to demand of psychology. Among other things, it freely makes false claims about the state of psychological research and then trots out a handful of examples to be assumed as exemplars.

It's little better than the Scientology "PSYCHIATRY IS DEATH" material.

Pot, meet kettle.

This article resonated with me very strongly, since I lived it. It seems to have struck a nerve for you too - maybe you're on the other side of the devout following?

Edit: I'm not claiming an emotional response to it, just that I can vouch for the validity of it in my case. Anecdotal evidence, but it's still a data point.

> This article resonated with me very strongly, since I lived it.

"X appeals to me emotionally because it conforms to and provides a pat explanation for my personal experience" does not imply "X is true".

In fact, disconnecting those two concepts is an essential step to beginning to approach the world scientifically.

You are incorrect. The article did not "strike a nerve" or otherwise provoke a strong emotional reaction in me. You may wish to stop and consider why you assumed that.