My main concern with this is that reading a piece of opinion is not the same as analysing a proof: emphasis and rhetorical devices are not some obscure trickery which should immediately trigger a reaction, but an integral part of conveying a message. Apparently, this:<p>> So yes, developers and architects also make their decisions with basal ganglia instead of thinking rationally. Usually it is simply a reflection on the previous experience. What is experience if not a sum of formed habits?<p>Should be immediately called as bullshit by someone 'firm with reality'. As a statement of fact, that is correct, as no supporting evidence is brought. But as part of an unfolding reflection, i.e. a way of exposing an idea to the reader before arguing and/or building on it, I find it hard to call it 'plain bullshit' on the spot, even if this is certainly a weak point of any argumentation built on it. To consider the entire piece entirely invalid at the first arguable sentence assumes a linear, deductive construction of the text which is not very representative of how actual arguments are built (and what makes them either strong or weak)