Not to deny your experience with it, however looking up the author and the book I notice that it has drawn some serious criticisms for inaccuracies and lack of empirical data backing up claims.
Doesn't that describe almost all books on psychology?
Psychology studies tend to be so hilariously unscientific that I'd rather get the coherent opinions and gut feelings of an experienced practicing expert, rather than half-arsed studies.
You could level some pretty damning claims against hard science as well due to the ongoing reproducibility crises in academia (LK99, the "faster than light" accidents that have been reported,the "EM Drive"), or the enormous amount of money (and people's brains) sunk into string theory. Somehow those are/were considered science even though there is no evidence.
You could see the bibliography of the book itself. You could google a bit and see the guy is a leader in this field, and a pioneer of this research. Answering a request for sources of your assertion with a request for theirs isn't done in good faith.
I made no such assertion? I was following the thread and I think its a fair request. It was an easy google search to see that he was fired for bullying and creating a hostile workplace a few years back...not sure where that landed. And I saw a number of articles relating to pseudoscience that he recommends in the book. It was a simple ask for their simple ask.