>>354030
>She's part of the long march through universities
In the way that she's a leftist in academia. But strategically speaking, the topic of the article goes against the agenda of leftism by showing a field of left-leaning people spinning narratives for personal gain and rejecting the notion of truth.
>the answer is "no real reason apparently, some people just didn't like the guy's tone".
That's said in the case study, but not actually stated in the article to be the underlying cause. It also mentions cluster B personality disorders and BPD, which you've seemingly ignored for the sake of your argument.
>Nothing about why those people seem to be so strongly embedded in the industry.
The article describes a current state, not the mechanisms that called it into being. But that's not exactly an unusual way to approach a topic.
>It's her and her ilk that are the issue
I understand the sentiment, but leftism, the long march through the institutions, and the trickle-down effects that came along with it, plus the funding that allows it to continue, are all huge topics. In the light of psychology, only parts of that are even relevant. It sounds like the only thing you want the article to say is that leftists are to blame. Unless you're advocating for the disenfranchisement of everyone you disagree with, "It's her and her ilk" is not an explanation that allows for actionable solutions. Furthermore, it's easy to put everyone in the same box, but movements are still made of individuals, and that means you need to leave some room for error when judging someone by their surroundings.
>you can't trust many of the individual facts, because some may be twisted to suit her ends.
It's natural to be skeptical about someone's point when they're spouting obvious bullshit elsewhere. But you're outright saying she's untrustworthy, and the only reason you have is that she bought into leftist narratives. That in itself only demonstrates that she wasn't able to tell fact from fiction on that particular topic. Besides, you shouldn't blindly trust things stated as fact, even from a source you agree with. Remember, trust but verify.
>>354032
>One is just a step removed from the source of who you're listening to and believing
Unironically, yes. Now, here's a question for you: How many journal articles do you read every day? Not magazines, but actual scientific journals. In how many of those articles do you probe the exact methodology for possible errors? How much of your worldview is not in some way, shape, or form based on a level of hearsay? In other words, how much do
you listen and believe, hypocrite? When you trust a source and don't know it's unreliable, it doesn't make you a hypocrite, just ill informed.