The use of these "technical" terms may be appropriate if it were presented in a different context. There are several examples of this document definitely being

The use of these "technical" terms may be appropriate if it were presented in a different context. There are several examples of this document definitely being inappropriate (ones you did not refute), which exacerbates what could otherwise be benine use of technical terminology. To the reader who's already seen several remarks out of line, remarks like "nerotic" seem that much worse. A perfectly choerent and scientific paper would include references for the points it tries to make. Many people have tried to retroactively justify his "points" with links to Wikipedia articles, but it should be proactively justified in the document with links to scholarly articles. Not doing so makes it difficult to believe that he's writing about anything other than his own cognative biases. "Real" scientists also go through peer review, when their peers might say "this makes you come across like a bit of a dick" before it's published for broader review. "Real scientists" have lots more discipline than this guy, and if he had taken a "real" scientist's approach he would have probably been a lot better off.