[antonchekhov]

Then what did your second sentence ["These are not scientific observations in any sense. What does the author do to confirm or refute her psychological theories about others?"] intend?

> She's very good at telling stories, but these stories feel like fiction, not hard fact.

There was no claim of objective fact. This is a Substack piece, not a peer-reviewed submission to "Nature" journal.

[lapcat]

> This is a Substack piece, not a peer-reviewed submission to "Nature" journal.

Are you suggesting that we can't criticize the crap people say on Substack?